19375
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
Under
section
307(
b)(
1)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
petitions
for
judicial
review
of
this
action
must
be
filed
in
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
appropriate
circuit
by
June
20,
2003.
Filing
a
petition
for
reconsideration
by
the
Administrator
of
this
final
rule
does
not
affect
the
finality
of
this
rule
for
the
purposes
of
judicial
review
nor
does
it
extend
the
time
within
which
a
petition
for
judicial
review
may
be
filed,
and
shall
not
postpone
the
effectiveness
of
such
rule
or
action.
This
action
may
not
be
challenged
later
in
proceedings
to
enforce
its
requirements
(
See
section
307(
b)(
2)).

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
52
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Nitrogen
dioxide,
Ozone,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Volatile
organic
compounds.

Dated:
April
10,
2003.

Richard
E.
Greene,

Regional
Administrator,
Region
6.


Part
52,
chapter
I,
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows

PART
52
 
[
AMENDED]


1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
52
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

Subpart
T
 
Louisiana

2.
Section
52.975
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.975
Redesignations
and
maintenance
plans;
ozone.

*
*
*
*
*
(
g)
Approval.
 
The
Louisiana
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(
LDEQ)
submitted
to
the
EPA
a
request
on
December
4,
2000,
to
revise
the
Louisiana
SIP
for
Beauregard,
St.
Mary,
Lafayette,
and
Grant
Parishes
and
the
New
Orleans
Consolidated
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
ozone
maintenance
area.
The
revision
involves
changes
to
the
approved
contingency
plans.
The
contingency
measures
and
the
schedule
for
implementation
satisfy
the
requirements
of
section
175A(
d)
of
the
Act.
The
EPA
therefore
approved
this
request
on
June
20,
2003.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
9619
Filed
4
 
18
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
OAR
 
2003
 
0003:
FRL
 
7461
 
7]

RIN
2060
 
AE79
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants:
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
promulgates
national
emissions
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
new
and
existing
reinforced
plastic
composites
production
facilities.
The
NESHAP
regulate
production
and
ancillary
processes
used
to
manufacture
products
with
thermoset
resins
and
gel
coats.
Reinforced
plastic
composites
production
facilities
emit
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP),
such
as
styrene,
methyl
methacrylate
(
MMA),
and
methylene
chloride
(
dichloromethane).
These
HAP
have
adverse
health
effects
including
headache,
fatigue,
depression,
irritation
of
skin,
eyes,
and
mucous
membranes.
Methylene
chloride
has
been
classified
as
a
probable
human
carcinogen.
The
NESHAP
will
implement
section
112(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
by
requiring
all
major
sources
in
this
category
to
meet
HAP
emissions
standards
reflecting
the
application
of
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT).
We
estimate
the
final
NESHAP
will
reduce
nationwide
emissions
of
HAP
from
these
facilities
by
approximately
7,682
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
(
43
percent).
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
April
21,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Docket.
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2003
 
0003
(
formerly
Docket
No.
A
 
94
 
52)
contains
supporting
information
used
in
developing
the
standards.
The
docket
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(
Air
Docket)
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
EPA
West,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Avenue
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
further
information
concerning
applicability
and
rule
determinations,
contact
the
appropriate
State
or
local
agency
representative.
For
information
concerning
the
analyses
performed
in
developing
the
NESHAP,
contact
Keith
Barnett,
U.
S.
EPA,
Emission
Standards
Division,
Minerals
and
Inorganic
Chemicals
Group,
C504
 
05,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
(
919)
541
 
5605,
barnett.
keith@
epa.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Docket.
We
have
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2003
 
0003
(
formerly
Docket
No.
A
 
94
 
52).
The
docket
is
an
organized
and
complete
file
of
the
information
considered
by
the
EPA
in
the
development
of
this
rulemaking.
The
docket
is
a
dynamic
file
because
material
is
added
throughout
the
rulemaking
process.
The
docketing
system
is
intended
to
allow
members
of
the
public
and
industries
involved
to
readily
identify
and
locate
documents
so
that
they
can
effectively
participate
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Along
with
the
proposed
and
promulgated
standards
and
their
preambles,
the
contents
of
the
docket,
excluding
interagency
review
materials,
will
serve
as
the
record
in
the
case
of
judicial
review.
(
See
section
307(
d)(
7)(
A)
of
the
CAA.)
The
regulatory
text
and
other
materials
related
to
this
rulemaking
are
available
for
review
in
the
docket
or
copies
may
be
mailed
on
request
from
the
Air
Docket
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1742.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
Electronic
Docket
Access.
You
may
access
the
final
rule
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
in
the
above
paragraph
entitled
``
Docket.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
final
NESHAP
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
the
Administrator's
signature,
a
copy
of
the
NESHAP
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19376
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Regulated
Entities.
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include:

Category
NAICS
code
SIC
code
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Industry
...............................................
325211
326122
325991
326191
327991
327993
2821
3084
3087
3088
3089
3281
3296
Reinforced
plastic
composites
production
facilities
that
manufacture
intermediate
and/
or
final
products
using
styrene
containing
thermoset
resins
and
gel
coats.

332998
33312
33651
335311
335313
335312
33422
336211
336112
3431
3531
3531
3612
3613
3621
3663
3711
3711
336211
33651
33653
336399
33612
3713
3714
3714
3716
336213
336413
336214
3728
3743
3792
3999
Federal
Government
..........................
....................
....................
Federally
owned
facilities
that
manufacture
intermediate
and/
or
final
products
using
styrene
containing
thermoset
resins
and
gel
coats.

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

I.
Introduction
A.
What
is
the
purpose
of
NESHAP?
B.
What
is
the
source
of
authority
for
development
of
NESHAP?
C.
What
processes
and
operations
are
included
in
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
source
category?
II.
Summary
of
the
Final
NESHAP
A.
What
source
categories
and
subcategories
are
affected
by
the
final
NESHAP?
B.
What
are
the
primary
sources
of
HAP
emissions
and
what
are
the
emissions?
C.
What
is
the
affected
source?
D.
What
are
the
HAP
emissions
limits,
operating
limits,
and
other
standards?
E.
What
are
the
HAP
emissions
factor
equations
in
Table
1
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63,
and
how
are
they
used
in
the
final
NESHAP?
F.
When
would
I
need
to
comply
with
the
final
NESHAP?
G.
What
are
the
options
for
demonstrating
compliance?
H.
What
are
the
testing
and
initial
compliance
requirements?
I.
What
are
the
continuous
compliance
requirements?
J.
What
are
the
notification,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements?
III.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
facilities
are
affected
by
the
final
NESHAP?
B.
What
are
the
air
quality
impacts?
C.
What
are
the
water
quality
impacts?
D.
What
are
the
solid
and
hazardous
waste
impacts?
E.
What
are
the
energy
impacts?
F.
What
are
the
cost
impacts?
G.
What
are
the
economic
impacts?
IV.
Summary
of
Changes
Since
Proposal
A.
Above­
the­
Floor
Capture
and
Control
Requirements
for
Existing
Sources
B.
Replacing
the
Point
Value
Equations
with
HAP
Emissions
Factor
Equations
Based
on
the
Unified
Emissions
Factors,
and
Changes
to
Centrifugal
Casting
HAP
Emissions
Factors
C.
MACT
Floors
for
Existing
Sources
D.
Cleaning
E.
Compression/
Injection
Molding
F.
Averaging
Provisions
G.
Pultrusion
Compliance
Options
H.
Applicability
I.
Potential
Overlap
with
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
VVVV)
J.
Determination
of
Resin
and
Gel
Coat
HAP
Content
K.
New
Source
MACT
Floors
V.
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
VI.
Relationship
of
the
Final
NESHAP
to
Other
NESHAP
and
the
CAA
Operating
Permits
Program
A.
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Closed
Vent
Systems,
Control
Devices,
Recovery
Devices,
and
Routing
to
a
Fuel
Gas
System
of
a
Process
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
SS)
B.
NESHAP
for
Boat
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
VVVV)
C.
NESHAP
for
Plastic
Parts
and
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
D.
Operating
Permit
Program
VII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19377
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
J.
Congressional
Review
Act
I.
Introduction
A.
What
Is
the
Purpose
of
NESHAP?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The
primary
source
of
HAP
emissions
from
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
source
category
is
the
evaporation
of
styrene
and
other
organic
liquid
HAP
contained
in
the
resin
during
the
application
and/
or
curing
of
the
resin.
Since
styrene
participates
in
the
curing
reaction,
not
all
of
it
is
emitted.
Organic
HAP
emissions
also
occur
during
ancillary
operations
such
as
cleaning,
mixing,
repair,
and
HAP
containing
materials
storage.
Although
some
gel
coats
or
resins
may
contain
inorganic
HAP,
such
as
lead,
in
resin
solids
or
pigments,
we
have
no
data
to
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19378
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
indicate
the
inorganic
HAP
are
emitted
from
the
production
process.
Therefore,
only
organic
HAP
are
addressed
by
the
final
NESHAP.
Total
baseline
HAP
emissions
from
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
source
category
are
approximately
18,000
tpy.
The
HAP
emissions
from
spray
lay­
up
and
gel
coating
constitute
approximately
52
percent
and
23
percent
of
the
total
baseline
HAP
emissions,
respectively.
The
remaining
HAP
emissions
are
primarily
from
hand
lay­
up/
bucket
and
tool
application,
compression
molding/
injection
molding,
filament
application,
SMC
manufacturing,
and
centrifugal
casting.

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

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

TABLE
1.
 
SUMMARY
FOR
EXISTING
SOURCES,
AND
NEW
SOURCES
BELOW
THE
100
TPY
HAP
EMISSIONS
THRESHOLD
If
your
operation
type
is
.
.
.
And
you
use
.
.
.
MACT
for
existing
facilities
and
new
facilities
that
are
below
the
100
tpy
threshold
is
.
.
.

1.
Open
molding
 
corrosion­
resistant
and/
or
high
strength
(
CR/
HS).
a.
mechanical
resin
application
.......................
112
lb/
ton.

b.
filament
application
......................................
171
lb/
ton.
c.
manual
resin
application
..............................
123
lb/
ton.
2.
Open
molding
 
non­
CR/
HS
...........................
a.
mechanical
resin
application
.......................
87
lb/
ton.
b.
filament
application
......................................
188
lb/
ton.
c.
manual
resin
application
..............................
87
lb/
ton.
3.
Open
molding
 
tooling
...................................
a.
mechanical
resin
application
.......................
254
lb/
ton.
b.
manual
resin
application
..............................
157
lb/
ton.
4.
Open
molding
 
low­
flame
spread/
low­
smoke
products.
a.
mechanical
resin
application
.......................
497
lb/
ton.

b.
filament
application
......................................
270
lb/
ton.
c.
manual
resin
application
..............................
238
lb/
ton.
5.
Open
molding
 
shrinkage
controlled
resin
....
a.
mechanical
resin
application
.......................
354
lb/
ton.
b.
filament
application
......................................
215
lb/
ton.
c.
manual
resin
application
..............................
180
lb/
ton.
6.
Open
molding
 
gel
coat
b
..............................
a.
tooling
gel
coating
........................................
437
lb/
ton.
b.
white/
off
white
pigmented
gel
coating
.........
267
lb/
ton.
c.
all
other
pigmented
gel
coating
...................
377
lb/
ton.
d.
CR/
HS
or
high
performance
gel
coat
..........
605
lb/
ton.
e.
fire
retardant
gel
coat
..................................
854
lb/
ton.
f.
clear
production
gel
coat
..............................
522
lb/
ton.
7.
Centrifugal
casting
 
CR/
HS
c
.........................
N/
A
...................................................................
25
lb/
ton.
8.
Centrifugal
casting
 
non­
CR/
HS
c
..................
N/
A
...................................................................
20
lb/
ton.
9.
Pultrusion
d
.....................................................
N/
A
...................................................................
Reduce
total
HAP
emissions
by
at
least
60
weight
percent.
10.
Continuous
lamination/
casting
.....................
N/
A
...................................................................
Reduce
total
HAP
emissions
by
at
least
58.5
weight
percent
or
not
exceed
a
HAP
emissions
limit
of
15.7
lbs
of
HAP
per
ton
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19379
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
1.
 
SUMMARY
FOR
EXISTING
SOURCES,
AND
NEW
SOURCES
BELOW
THE
100
TPY
HAP
EMISSIONS
THRESHOLD
 
Continued
If
your
operation
type
is
.
.
.
And
you
use
.
.
.
MACT
for
existing
facilities
and
new
facilities
that
are
below
the
100
tpy
threshold
is
.
.
.

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

a
HAP
emissions
limits
for
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
expressed
as
lb/
ton
are
calculated
using
the
equations
shown
in
Table
1
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.
You
must
be
at
or
below
these
values
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average.
b
These
limits
are
for
spray
application
of
gel
coat.
Manual
gel
coat
application
may
be
included
as
part
of
spray
gel
coat
application
for
compliance
purposes
using
the
same
HAP
emissions
factor
equation
and
HAP
emissions
limit.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19380
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
c
Centrifugal
casting
operations
where
the
resin
is
injected
into
the
mold
and
the
mold
is
completely
closed
during
spinning
and
curing
may
be
treated
as
closed
molding
operations.
d
Pultrusion
machines
that
produce
parts
with
1000
or
more
reinforcements
and
a
cross
sectional
area
of
60
inches
or
more
are
not
subject
to
this
requirement.
Their
requirement
is
the
work
practice
of
air
flow
management
reduction.
e
Containers
of
5
gallons
or
less
may
be
open
when
active
mixing
is
taking
place,
or
during
periods
when
they
are
in
process
(
i.
e.,
they
are
actively
being
used
to
apply
resin).
For
polymer
casting
mixing
operations,
containers
with
a
surface
area
of
500
square
inches
or
less
may
be
open
while
active
mixing
is
taking
place.

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

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

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

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

We
are
requiring
that
all
existing
sources
comply
by
April
21,
2006.
Any
source
that
commenced
construction
after
August
2,
2001,
at
a
site
where
there
were
no
existing
reinforced
plastic
composite
operations
is
a
new
source.
New
affected
sources
that
are
now
in
operation
must
be
in
compliance
on
April
21,
2003.
New
affected
sources
that
startup
after
April
21,
2003
must
comply
upon
startup.
Existing
area
sources
that
increase
their
HAP
emissions
or
their
potential
to
emit
such
that
they
become
a
major
source
of
HAP
must
be
in
compliance
within
3
years
of
the
date
they
become
a
major
source.
New
area
sources
that
become
major
sources
of
HAP
must
comply
upon
becoming
a
major
source.
All
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operations
that
comply
by
meeting
a
specified
HAP
emissions
limit
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average
will
have
1
year
from
the
compliance
date
to
demonstrate
compliance.
We
are
allowing
new
and
existing
facilities
3
years
to
comply
from
the
time
their
HAP
emissions
reach
or
exceed
the
applicability
thresholds
which
require
the
installation
of
add­
on
controls,
if
these
HAP
emissions
increases
occur
after
their
initial
compliance
date.
In
addition,
we
have
added
a
one­
time
exemption
for
facilities
that
exceed
the
100
tpy
threshold
due
to
unusual
circumstances.
Facilities
that
apply
for
this
exemption
and
subsequently
exceed
the
threshold
the
next
year,
must
comply
within
3
years
from
the
time
their
HAP
emissions
first
exceeded
the
threshold.
Because
this
is
a
one­
time
exemption,
an
exceedance
in
any
future
years
would
result
in
a
requirement
for
compliance
within
3
years
of
the
subsequent
exceedance.
G.
What
Are
the
Options
for
Demonstrating
Compliance?
Today's
final
NESHAP
provide
several
options
for
compliance
for
certain
operations.
We
are
providing
these
options
to
afford
industry
the
flexibility
to
decide
which
method
is
best
suited
for
each
particular
situation.
Operations
not
listed
in
this
section
have
only
one
option
for
demonstrating
compliance.
For
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operations,
you
determine
compliance
with
the
HAP
emissions
limits
by
determining
HAP
emissions
factors
for
the
operations
at
your
facility,
and
comparing
your
HAP
emissions
factors
to
the
appropriate
HAP
emission
limits
for
each
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operation.
To
determine
your
HAP
emissions
factor
you
may
use
the
HAP
emissions
factor
equations
in
Table
1
to
subpart
WWWW,
or
HAP
emissions
factors
based
on
facility
HAP
emissions
testing.
For
open
molding
operations
at
existing
and
new
sources,
the
final
rule
allows
you
to
choose
to
comply
by
meeting
the
individual
HAP
emissions
limits
shown
in
Table
3
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
for
each
operation
at
your
affected
source,
or
by
meeting
the
weighted
average
HAP
emissions
limit
for
all
open
molding
operations
at
your
affected
source.
In
addition,
if
you
produce
parts
with
any
combination
of
manual
resin
application,
mechanical
resin
application,
filament
application,
or
centrifugal
casting
operations
at
your
affected
source,
you
can
comply
using
the
an
alternative
method
shown
in
Table
7
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.
You
determine
the
highest
allowable
HAP
resin
for
each
individual
operation
from
Table
3
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.
This
same
resin
can
then
be
used
in
all
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operations
as
shown
in
Table
7
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.
For
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operations
where
the
rule
would
require
you
to
meet
a
percent
reduction,
you
could
use
an
add­
on
control
device
to
achieve
the
required
reduction,
or
you
may
choose
to
meet
a
HAP
emissions
limit
that
corresponds
to
that
particular
operation's
percent
reduction.
For
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations
at
existing
and
new
sources,
we
are
allowing
you
to
demonstrate
that
each
continuous
casting
line
and
each
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19381
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
continuous
lamination
line
meets
the
appropriate
standard
in
Table
3
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63,
or
§
63.5805(
b)
or
(
d)
of
the
final
rule.
Alternatively,
you
can
average
all
your
continuous
casting
and
continuous
lamination
lines
together
and
demonstrate
that
they
meet
the
appropriate
standard.
An
additional
alternative
for
sources
that
emit
less
than
the
100
tpy
threshold
would
be
to
capture
your
HAP
emissions
from
your
wet­
out
area
in
a
permanent
total
enclosure
that
meets
EPA's
criteria,
as
specified
in
Method
204
of
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51,
and
vent
the
captured
wet­
out
HAP
emissions
through
a
closed
vent
system
to
a
control
device
achieving
95
percent
reduction
of
HAP
emissions.
Under
the
final
rule,
these
alternatives
can
be
used
in
combination
to
demonstrate
compliance.
The
standards
for
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations
are
expressed
as
a
percent
reduction
of
HAP
emissions.
As
an
alternative,
facilities
can
elect
to
meet
a
HAP
emissions
limit.
For
existing
and
new
pultrusion
operations,
you
can
capture
and
vent
your
HAP
emissions
to
a
control
device
that
achieves
the
required
percent
reduction
of
HAP
emissions.
For
all
existing
sources
and
for
new
sources
that
emit
less
than
the
100
tpy
threshold,
you
may
use
a
wet­
area
enclosure
with
a
resin
drip
collection
system,
direct
die
injection
or
preform
injection
systems
that
meet
the
criteria
specified
in
§
63.5830
of
the
final
rule
to
meet
the
60
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement.
For
pultrusion
machines
that
produce
parts
with
1000
or
more
reinforcements
and
a
cross
sectional
area
of
60
inches
or
more,
you
must
implement
the
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.
For
SMC
manufacturing
operations
at
new
sources
that
exceed
the
100
tpy
threshold,
we
allow
facilities
to
meet
a
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement,
or
the
HAP
emissions
limit
specified
in
Table
5
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.

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

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

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

III.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
Facilities
Are
Affected
by
the
Final
NESHAP?

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

B.
What
Are
the
Air
Quality
Impacts?

The
1997
baseline
HAP
emissions
from
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
industry
are
approximately
18,000
tpy.
The
final
NESHAP
will
reduce
HAP
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19382
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
from
existing
sources
by
7,682
tpy,
a
reduction
of
43
percent.
The
final
NESHAP
will
result
in
small
increases
in
other
air
pollution
emissions
from
combustion
devices
that
will
be
installed
in
the
next
5
years
to
comply
with
today's
final
rule.
These
increases
result
both
from
the
combustion
device
directly,
and
from
the
electrical
generating
plants
used
to
generate
the
electricity
necessary
to
operate
the
add­
on
controls
and
associated
air
handling
equipment.
These
emissions
are
estimated
to
be
2.3
tpy
of
sulfur
oxides
(
SOx),
3.0
tpy
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOX),
4.9
tpy
of
carbon
monoxide
(
CO),
and
0.1
tpy
of
particulate
matter
(
PM)
emissions.

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

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

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

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

G.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?
We
conducted
a
detailed
economic
impact
analysis
to
determine
the
market­
and
industry­
level
impacts
associated
with
the
final
rule.
We
expect
the
aggregate
price
increase
for
reinforced
plastic
composites
would
be
only
0.7
percent,
or
$
0.03
per
pound,
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule.
We
project
that
directly
affected
producers
would
reduce
total
production
by
1.7
percent,
while
producers
not
directly
affected
would
increase
their
production
by
0.7
percent.
Markets
for
reinforced
plastic
composites
used
in
corrosion­
resistant
products
are
expected
to
be
more
heavily
impacted
with
price
increases
of
roughly
1.6
percent
and
reductions
in
directly
affected
domestic
production
of
almost
5
percent.
The
reason
for
more
significant
impacts
in
the
corrosionresistant
market
is
that
facilities
in
this
market
have
higher
average
per­
unit
variable
compliance
costs.
Corrosionresistant
product
variable
compliance
costs
are
$
0.13
per
pound
of
product
versus
an
industry
average
of
$
0.06
per
pound.
In
terms
of
industry
impacts,
we
analyzed
impacts
for
captive
producers
and
merchant
producers.
Captive
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19383
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
producers
make
composites
for
use
by
another
part
of
their
company
in
a
larger
product.
Merchant
producers
sell
their
products
on
the
open
market,
either
to
consumers
or
other
businesses.
In
our
analysis,
captive
producers
of
reinforced
plastic
composites
are
expected
to
fully
absorb
their
compliance
costs,
which
is
a
conservative
approach.
We
assess
impacts
as
if
captive
producers
are
viewed
as
a
profit
center
like
a
merchant
producer
but
unable
to
pass
on
costs.
This
is
done
in
lieu
of
an
analysis
attempting
to
estimate
cost­
pass
through
for
the
myriad
of
final
products
that
use
reinforced
plastics.
We
assume
merchant
producers
will
attempt
to
pass
through
costs
to
their
customers.
Through
the
market
impacts
described
above,
the
final
NESHAP
create
both
gainers
and
losers
within
the
merchant
segment.
Some
merchant
facilities
are
projected
to
experience
profit
increases
with
the
final
rule;
however,
the
majority
that
continue
operating
are
projected
to
lose
profits.
The
economic
impact
analysis
indicates
that
36
out
of
301
merchant
facilities
(
12
percent)
and
89
out
of
466
product
lines
(
19
percent)
at
these
facilities
are
at
risk
of
closure
because
of
the
final
NESHAP.
These
facilities
are
believed
to
be
small
businesses.
Note
that
this
number
is
slightly
higher
than
the
estimate
of
facility
closure
at
proposal,
which
was
10
percent.
This
change
is
not
due
to
any
change
in
stringency
of
the
final
rule
as
applied
to
small
businesses.
It
is
due
the
reduction
in
stringency
of
the
final
rule
for
large
sources.
More
information
on
the
measures
we
have
taken
to
minimize
the
small
business
impacts
may
be
found
in
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
discussion
in
this
preamble.
Furthermore,
the
analysis
indicates
that
ten
of
the
133
captive
facilities
(
7.5
percent)
may
be
at
risk
of
closure
if
unable
to
pass
on
costs
to
their
customers.
Based
on
the
market
analysis,
the
annual
social
costs
of
the
final
rule
are
projected
to
be
$
19.9
million.
The
social
costs
are
slightly
less
than
the
engineering
cost
estimate
of
$
21.5
million
because
producers
pass
on
a
portion
of
these
costs
to
consumers
through
price
increases
in
an
effort
to
reduce
their
regulatory
burden.
These
costs
are
distributed
across
the
many
consumers
and
producers
of
reinforced
plastic
composites.
Directly
affected
producers,
in
aggregate,
are
expected
to
lose
$
6.2
million
annually
in
profits,
with
those
not
subject
to
the
final
NESHAP
gaining
$
18
million.
The
consumers
of
reinforced
plastic
composites
are
expected
to
lose
$
31.7
million
due
to
higher
prices
and
lower
consumption
levels
associated
with
the
final
NESHAP.
For
more
information
on
the
economic
analysis,
consult
the
final
economic
impacts
analysis
document
in
the
docket
for
this
project.

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

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

C.
MACT
Floors
for
Existing
Sources
There
are
several
changes
to
the
MACT
floors
for
existing
sources,
and
for
new
sources
that
emit
less
than
100
tpy
for
the
combination
of
all
open
molding,
centrifugal
casting,
pultrusion,
SMC
and
BMC
manufacturing,
mixing,
and
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations.
These
changes
were
a
result
of
facilities
submitting
additional
data
that
indicated
our
original
analysis
of
their
facility
HAP
emissions
factors
were
in
error,
or
out
of
date.
For
noncorrosion­
resistant
resins
applied
using
mechanical
application,
the
proposed
rule
had
different
floors
for
filled
and
unfilled
resins.
The
reason
for
separating
filled
and
unfilled
resins
was
that
at
the
time
of
proposal,
nonatomized
resin
application
techniques
were
not
available
for
filled
resins.
Since
proposal,
filled
resins
now
can
be
applied
using
nonatomized
spray.
Therefore,
we
now
have
combined
the
two
process/
product
groupings
into
one.
Also,
several
facilities
in
this
process/
product
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19384
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
grouping
provided
revised
data.
As
a
result,
the
floor
level
of
control
for
noncorrosion­
resistant
resins
using
mechanical
application
is
a
HAP
emissions
limit
of
87
lb/
ton.
This
limit
requires
a
resin
with
no
more
than
38.4
percent
HAP
applied
using
nonatomized
mechanical
resin
application
techniques.
At
proposal,
facilities
could
use
a
42.8
percent
resin
(
filled)
or
a
38
percent
HAP
(
unfilled)
resin
and
nonatomized
mechanical
resin
application.
For
mechanical
corrosion­
resistant
resin
application,
the
revised
floor
is
a
HAP
emissions
limit
of
112
lb/
ton.
This
limit
requires
a
resin
with
no
more
that
46.2
percent
HAP
and
nonatomized
mechanical
resin
application.
At
proposal,
a
resin
HAP
content
of
up
to
48.3
percent
was
allowed
if
nonatomized
mechanical
resin
application
was
used.
For
manual
application
of
tooling
resin,
the
revised
floor
is
157
lb/
ton.
This
allows
a
resin
HAP
content
of
45.9
percent
or
less.
At
proposal,
the
maximum
allowable
HAP
content
was
39.9
percent.
For
tooling
gel
coat
the
revised
floor
is
437
lb/
ton.
This
limits
gel
coat
HAP
content
to
40
percent
of
less.
At
proposal,
the
limit
was
38
percent
or
less.
For
SMC
manufacturing,
the
work
practices
required
in
the
proposed
rule
were
use
of
nylon
film,
folding
the
edges
of
the
film,
and
covering
the
doctor
box.
In
the
final
rule,
the
requirements
are
a
covered
resin
transport
system
to
the
doctor
box
and
the
use
of
nylon­
containing
film.
For
pultrusion
operations
producing
parts
with
1000
or
more
reinforcements
and
a
cross
sectional
area
of
60
inches
or
more,
we
have
changed
the
floor
from
60
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
to
a
work
practice
of
air
flow
management.
In
addition,
we
established
three
new
floors
for
speciality
resins
and
gel
coats.
These
are
shrinkage­
controlled
resins,
fire
retardant
gel
coats,
and
high
performance
gel
coats.
These
speciality
products
were
identified
from
comments
received
on
the
proposed
rule.
The
new
floors
are
shown
in
Table
3
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.

D.
Cleaning
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
required
that
cleaning
materials
contain
no
HAP
unless
cleaning
cured
resin
from
application
equipment.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
modified
that
requirement
to
allow
HAP­
containing
cleaners
to
be
used
in
closed
systems
such
as
closed
tanks,
and
resin
and
gel
coat
delivery
systems.
E.
Compression/
Injection
Molding
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
required
that
only
one
resin
charge
be
uncovered
at
a
time.
We
have
clarified
this
requirement
for
the
final
rule
to
reflect
that
one
charge
may
actually
have
to
fill
multiple
molds.
Also,
we
added
a
provision
to
allow
the
use
of
automated
loaders
and
slitters.
We
also
clarified
that
paste
added
to
the
mold
and
inmold
surface
coatings
are
considered
part
of
the
closed
molding
operation.

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

G.
Pultrusion
Compliance
Options
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
allowed
pultrusion
operations
to
use
direct
die
injection
as
a
compliance
alternative
to
meet
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
requirement.
In
the
final
rule,
we
are
removing
direct
die
injection
as
a
compliance
alternative
because,
based
on
industry
data,
it
does
not
achieve
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction.
We
still
allow
direct
die
injection
as
a
compliance
option
to
meet
the
60
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement.
We
have
also
added
another
compliance
option,
preform
injection,
to
meet
a
60
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction.
We
have
also
added
another
compliance
option,
airflow
management
work
practices,
for
pultrusion
machines
that
produce
large
parts
as
set
forth
in
Table
4
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.
H.
Applicability
We
made
a
number
of
changes
dealing
with
rule
applicability.
First,
we
expanded
the
list
of
specific
operations
that
are
part
of
the
source
category,
but
are
not
subject
to
any
control,
reporting,
or
recordkeeping
requirements.
These
operations
include
application
of
mold
sealing
and
release
agents,
mold
stripping
and
cleaning,
repair
of
previously
manufactured
parts
that
is
unrelated
to
collocated
manufacturing
operations,
personal
activities
that
are
not
part
of
the
manufacturing
operations
(
such
as
hobby
shops
on
military
bases),
prepreg
materials
as
defined
in
§
63.5935
of
the
final
rule,
non­
gel
coat
surface
coatings,
repair
or
production
materials
that
do
not
contain
resin
or
gel
coat,
and
research
and
development
(
R&
D)
operations
as
defined
in
section
112(
c)(
7)
of
the
CAA.
In
addition,
we
exempted
any
facility
that
uses
less
than
1.2
tpy
of
resin
and
gel
coat,
and
R&
D
facilities
and
operations
at
manufacturing
facilities.
The
rationale
for
these
changes
is
discussed
in
the
responses
to
major
comments
section.

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

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

J.
Determination
of
Resin
and
Gel
Coat
HAP
Content
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
stated
that
facilities
could
determine
resin
and
gel
coat
HAP
content
using
material
safety
data
sheets
(
MSDS)
or
resin
specification
sheets.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
included
§
63.5797,
which
describes
in
more
detail
how
to
determine
resin
and
gel
coat
HAP
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19385
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
content.
This
new
section
also
clarifies
that
only
organic
HAP
are
included
in
determining
HAP
content.
The
reason
is
that
we
have
no
data
to
indicate
that
any
other
HAP,
such
as
inorganic
HAP
potentially
present
in
pigments
or
resin
solids,
are
emitted
from
the
production
process.
We
also
now
include
a
provision
to
account
for
normal
manufacturing
tolerances
that
occur
in
resin
and
gel
coat
manufacture.

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

V.
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
This
section
presents
a
summary
of
significant
public
comments
and
responses.
A
summary
of
all
the
public
comments
that
were
received
and
our
responses
to
those
comments
can
be
found
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2003
 
0003
(
formerly
Docket
No.
A
 
94
 
52).
Comment:
We
received
numerous
comments
on
the
above­
the­
floor
requirements
for
existing
sources.
First,
commenters
stated
that
EPA
had
significantly
underestimated
the
costs
of
add­
on
controls.
They
stated
that
industry
estimates
were,
in
some
cases,
ten
times
higher
than
our
estimates.
They
stated
that
we
had
overestimated
the
HAP
concentrations
in
the
exhaust
streams,
underestimated
the
exhaust
flows,
and
omitted
costs
for
continuous
monitors.
Second,
the
commenters
claimed
that
we
had
not
established
that
95
percent
capture
and
control
was
technically
feasible
for
this
diverse
industry,
and
that
only
two
facilities
out
of
433
actually
had
achieved
the
100
percent
capture
that
is
required
to
meet
an
overall
capture
and
control
level
of
95
percent.
They
also
stated
that
these
two
facilities
were
atypical
of
the
industry
as
a
whole
because
they
also
had
collocated
coating
operations
that
were
also
routed
to
the
same
control
device.
They
further
stated
that
the
criteria
of
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51
are
not
feasible
for
most
facilities
in
this
industry.
For
these
reasons,
the
commenters
recommended
that
the
above­
the­
floor
requirement
be
removed.
Response:
As
a
result
of
these
comments,
we
reviewed
the
costing
methodology
for
the
above­
the­
floor
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
and
made
changes
to
our
costing
methodology
for
add­
on
controls.
Some
of
the
major
changes
were
lowering
the
default
inlet
concentration
to
the
control
device
from
100
parts
per
million
volume
(
ppmv)
to
50
ppmv,
revising
the
fan
power
equation,
and
using
2,000
operating
hours
per
year,
rather
than
6,000
hours
per
year,
as
a
default
value
in
the
absence
of
actual
yearly
operating
information.
Based
on
these
new
costs,
the
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
emissions
reduction
of
the
above­
the­
floor
requirement
significantly
increased
for
most
process/
product
groupings.
As
a
result,
we
have
removed
the
above­
the­
floor
control
requirements
for
all
process/
product
groupings
except
centrifugal
casting
and
continuous
lamination/
casting.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
comments
discussed
above
were
based
on
open
molding
operations.
We
received
no
comments
specifically
on
the
above­
thefloor
requirements
as
applied
to
centrifugal
casting
and
continuous
lamination/
casting.
Comment:
One
commenter
opposed
allowing
control
requirements
for
new
sources
emitting
less
than
100
tpy
to
be
the
same
as
those
for
existing
sources
because
a
new
site
has
the
opportunity
to
design
and
incorporate
pollution
prevention
and
control
strategies
that
would
be
cost­
prohibitive
for
existing
sources
to
implement.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
consider
more
stringent
requirements
for
new
sources,
including
smaller
sources,
through
generally
available
control
technology
or
other
approaches
that
would
not
be
overly
burdensome.
Another
commenter
adds
that
EPA's
analysis
indicates
that
the
best
controlled
facilities
have
reduced
HAP
by
only
95
percent,
and
95
percent
is
most
likely
the
maximum
extent
of
historic
regulatory
requirements.
The
commenter
notes
that
EPA
looked
at
the
experience
of
existing
facilities
to
achieve
greater
than
95
percent
control
through
add­
on
control
in
conjunction
with
pollution
prevention
and
did
not
find
facilities
achieving
greater
control
than
that.
While
the
assessment
may
be
correct
for
what
EPA
looked
at,
the
commenter
states
that
examining
past
experience
that
lacks
regulatory
drivers
for
greater
control
is
not
the
same
as
examining
the
present
and
future
potential
for
control
opportunities.
The
commenter
believes
that
the
proposal
dismisses
the
potential
for
these
two
control
techniques
(
add­
on
control
and
pollution
prevention)
to
be
applied
to
new
sources.
Response:
We
agree
that
new
facilities
can
more
easily
incorporate
pollution
prevention
and
add­
on
controls.
This
is
the
reason
we
set
the
new
source
floor
at
95
percent
control
for
most
new
sources
that
emit
over
100
tpy,
and
not
at
the
same
level
as
existing
source
floors.
Facilities
that
have
incorporated
addon
controls
tend
to
be
larger
facilities.
New
facilities
in
this
industry
can
be
small
operations
that
operate
a
limited
number
of
hours
and
still
be
major
sources.
These
small
sources
cannot
reliably
meet
95
percent
capture
and
control
given
their
limited
operating
schedules
and
their
potential
lack
of
onsite
technical
expertise.
Therefore,
we
are
not
requiring
a
source
emitting
less
than
100
tpy
to
meet
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
level.
We
examined
whether
or
not
we
could
specify
some
other
level
of
control
for
small
sources,
but
we
could
not
determine
what
would
be
an
appropriate
level
of
capture
and
control
below
95
percent.
We
also
considered
basing
new
source
MACT
floors
for
facilities
that
emit
less
then
100
tpy
on
the
single
best
facility
that
incorporated
pollution
prevention.
However,
as
discussed
in
the
preamble
of
the
proposed
rule,
we
believed
that
using
one
facility
that
had
the
lowest
HAP
content
resins
and
gel
coats
was
unworkable,
unless
we
could
show
that
all
new
plants
would
build
the
same
products
as
the
plants
that
had
the
lowest
HAP
content
resins
and
gel
coats.
Given
this,
we
had
to
determine
a
threshold
value
above
which
95
percent
capture
and
control
is
feasible
for
all
new
plants,
given
the
diversity
of
this
industry.
We
selected
100
tpy
of
actual
HAP
emissions
because
above
this
level
facilities
tend
to
operate
more
hours
per
year
and
are
better
equipped
to
maintain
capture
and
control
systems.
Also,
at
the
time
we
proposed
the
rule,
the
smallest
facility
in
the
open
molding
process/
product
grouping
that
was
permitted
at
95
percent
capture
and
control
emitted
approximately
100
tpy.
Therefore,
we
chose
this
number
as
the
threshold
at
which
95
percent
capture
and
control
is
required.
This
was
not
the
only
approach
we
could
have
taken
to
subcategorize
new
sources,
nor
is
100
tpy
the
only
threshold
we
could
have
chosen.
For
example,
we
could
have
subcategorized
by
annual
hours
of
operation.
However,
depending
on
the
threshold
we
set,
this
could
result
in
large,
new
HAP
emissions
sources
avoiding
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19386
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
requirements
simply
by
building
a
larger
facility
and
reducing
hours
of
operation.
By
tying
the
requirement
directly
to
HAP
emissions,
we
believe
we
have
taken
the
most
logical
approach
from
an
environmental
standpoint
and
an
enforcement
standpoint.
Also,
the
100
tpy
threshold
is
a
reasonable
choice
that
means
that
all
new
large
facilities
in
most
of
the
process/
product
groupings
will
have
to
meet
the
most
stringent
HAP
emissions
control
levels.
Comment:
We
received
numerous
comments
on
the
new
source
MACT
floor
for
facilities
with
open
molding,
pultrusion,
SMC
manufacturing,
mixing,
and
BMC
manufacturing
that
emit
100
tpy
or
more
of
HAP
from
these
operations.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
requirements
of
the
floor
were
technically
infeasible
and
too
costly.
They
also
stated
that
95
percent
capture
and
control
does
not
represent
the
best
HAP
emissions
control
approach
when
all
environmental
impacts,
such
as
increases
in
emissions
of
criteria
pollutant
and
greenhouse
gases,
are
considered.
The
commenters
note
that
the
CAA
states
that
the
best
controlled
similar
source
must
be
the
basis
of
the
new
source
MACT
floor;
therefore,
EPA
is
only
authorized
to
apply
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
requirements
to
facilities
that
are
similar.
The
sources
cited
by
EPA
make
uniformly­
sized
parts
in
high
volume,
employ
mechanical
resin
application,
and
operate
three
shifts
a
day.
However,
they
differ
from
other
facilities
in
the
industry.
One
of
the
sources
is
primarily
a
metal
fabrication
operation
and
sends
significant
amounts
of
emissions
from
a
painting
operation
to
the
control
device,
making
an
unusually
rich
combustion
stream.
They
also
claimed
that
the
facility
had
not
been
proven
to
meet
the
requirements
of
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51.
The
other
facility
employs
an
unusual
molding
operation,
and
the
ability
of
this
facility
to
actually
meet
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
requirement
is
open
to
question.
Neither
of
these
sources
are
similar
to
any
other
composites
open
molding
operation.
Response:
Our
available
information
continues
to
support
that
the
appropriate
new
source
floor
for
facilities
that
emit
100
tpy
or
more
of
combined
HAP
from
their
open
molding,
pultrusion,
SMC
manufacturing,
BMC
manufacturing,
mixing,
centrifugal
casting,
continuous
lamination,
and
continuous
casting
operations
is
95
percent
capture
and
control
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
term
``
best
control''
means
best
control
of
HAP
emissions.
The
only
other
control
techniques
mentioned
by
the
commenters
were
the
pollutionprevention
techniques
that
make
up
the
existing
source
floors.
The
commenters
claim
that
when
other
environmental
impacts
of
add­
on
controls
are
considered,
pollution­
prevention
control
techniques
are
actually
superior.
They
provided
examples
that
showed
HAP
emissions
reductions
from
pollution­
prevention
techniques
for
some
facilities
of
up
to
approximately
70
percent;
however,
the
actual
HAP
emissions
reductions
a
facility
will
achieve
based
on
pollution­
prevention
techniques
will
be
highly
site
specific.
Also,
the
highest
pollution­
prevention
HAP
emissions
reduction
examples
assume
facilities
could
reduce
HAP
emissions
by
enhanced
process
monitoring,
which
would
reduce
materials
used.
The
HAP
emissions
reductions
based
on
materials­
use
reductions
assumes
facilities
are
not
currently
using
materials
as
efficiently
as
they
could.
There
are
no
data
to
support
this
assumption,
and
the
potential
for
HAP
emissions
reduction
of
this
type
could
vary
widely.
The
second
example
presented
by
one
commenter
assumes
facilities
would
use
nonatomized
gel
coat
application.
However,
the
same
commenter
has
stated
emphatically
that
nonatomized
gel
coat
application
cannot
be
used
at
every
facility.
Therefore,
this
example
cannot
be
considered
to
fairly
represent
the
HAP
emissions
reductions
achievable
for
the
industry
as
a
whole.
Our
overall
estimate
of
the
HAP
emissions
reduction
that
would
occur
with
only
pollution­
prevention
techniques
is
approximately
41
percent
for
open
molding,
compared
to
the
significantly
higher
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reductions
possible
with
capture
and
control.
The
CAA
indicates
that
``
best
control''
in
the
context
of
setting
floors
is
the
control
that
achieves
the
best
HAP
emissions
reduction.
Based
on
this,
95
percent
capture
and
control
represents
best
control
for
this
industry.
Even
if
we
were
to
consider
other
environmental
impacts
of
capture
and
control,
95
percent
control
would
still
be
considered
best
control.
Calculations
provided
by
one
commenter
indicates
that
a
total
of
only
0.15
tons
of
criteria
pollutants
are
generated
per
ton
of
styrene
reduction;
however,
this
number
appears
to
be
based
on
one
of
the
three
actual
operating
facilities
using
add­
on
controls
shown
in
the
commenter's
example.
Data
from
another
facility
using
a
concentrator/
oxidizer
system
in
the
same
report
showed
criteria
pollutant
emissions
of
0.06
tons
per
ton
of
styrene
emissions
reduction.
Our
estimate
at
proposal
was
that,
on
average,
this
figure
is
closer
to
0.04
tons
of
criteria
pollutants
per
ton
of
HAP
emissions
reduction.
Regardless
of
which
number
is
used,
the
amount
of
HAP
emissions
reduction
is
significantly
higher
than
any
resulting
criteria
pollutant
emissions.
The
commenters
also
cite
greenhouse
gas
effects.
They
state
that
30
tons
of
greenhouse
gases
are
produced
for
every
ton
of
styrene
emissions
reduction.
We
reviewed
the
information
that
formed
the
basis
of
the
estimate
of
greenhouse
gas
estimates.
Based
on
our
analysis,
we
believe
that
the
estimate
of
30
tons
of
greenhouse
gases
are
produced
for
every
ton
of
styrene
emissions
reduction
is
an
overestimate
because
it
is
based
on
examples
where
the
HAP
emissions
reduction
varies
between
77
to
84
percent.
The
final
rule
will
require
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction.
Also,
we
believe
the
air
flows
used
in
the
examples
provided
by
the
commenter
are
higher
than
will
be
required
for
new
facilities.
Higher
air
flows
result
in
increased
use
of
natural
gas
and
higher
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
We
believe
a
more
accurate
number
would
be
approximately
20
tons
of
greenhouse
gases
produced
for
every
ton
of
styrene
emissions
reduction.
Second,
regardless
of
which
number
is
the
most
accurate,
any
contribution
of
the
final
rule
to
global
greenhouse
gas
emissions
is
insignificant.
The
total
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
the
United
States
exceed
6
trillion
tons
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
alone.
However,
the
difference
between
emissions
of
styrene
from
a
facility
controlled
to
the
95
percent
level
and
one
controlled
using
only
pollution
prevention
is
significant
to
the
populations
living
near
an
affected
facility.
The
commenters
also
stated
that
the
facilities
that
formed
the
basis
of
the
new
source
floor
are
not
``
similar
sources.''
We
disagree
because
there
are
actually
three
sources
within
this
source
category
that
meet
the
criteria
to
set
a
95
percent
capture
and
control
floor.
The
commenters
point
out
that
three
is
a
small
number
compared
to
the
433
facilities
in
the
database
at
proposal.
However,
the
CAA
requires
the
new
source
floor
to
be
based
on
the
single
best
performing
similar
source.
Therefore,
only
one
source
is
sufficient
to
set
a
new
source
floor
as
long
as
we
determine
it
is
similar.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
source
setting
the
floors
operates
three
shifts
(
they
shut
down
on
weekends).
However,
we
subcategorized
new
sources
by
annual
HAP
emissions.
The
reason
was
that
larger
sources
are
more
likely
to
operate
more
than
one
shift.
Also,
since
this
floor
only
applies
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19387
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
to
new
sources,
the
facility
can
be
designed
to
meet
the
necessary
production
rate
with
three
shift
operation
if
the
operator
desires
to
minimize
control
device
startups
and
shutdowns.
The
commenters
stated
that
in
two
cases,
the
floor
facilities
have
collocated
surface
coating
operations.
Our
evaluation
of
these
facilities
was
based
only
on
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
portion
of
the
facility.
During
site
visits
to
these
facilities,
we
determined
that
these
facilities
were
required
to
apply
95
percent
capture
and
control
to
all
major
processes
due
to
State
regulations.
That
requirement
would
apply
regardless
of
whether
or
not
the
facility
had
collocated
surface
coating
operations.
Also,
the
presence
of
the
surface
coating
operations
does
not
result
in
a
more
concentrated
exhaust
stream
compared
to
facilities
without
surface
coating
operations.
Thus,
there
is
no
technical
basis
to
say
these
facilities
are
not
similar
based
on
the
presence
of
surface
coating
operations.
We
also
reviewed
the
commenters
claim
that
the
facilities
that
set
the
new
source
floor
do
not
actually
meet
the
requirements
of
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51.
Part
of
that
claim
was
based
on
the
fact
that
the
floor
facilities
had
doors
in
the
PTE
that
were
opened
to
move
parts
and
materials
in
and
out
of
the
PTE.
One
criteria
of
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51
is
as
follows:
``
All
access
doors
and
windows
that
are
not
treated
as
natural
draft
openings
shall
be
closed
during
routine
operation
of
the
process''.
This
criteria
is
not
intended
to
require
that
these
doors
be
closed
at
all
times.
It
means
that
doors
must
be
closed
any
time
that
you
are
not
actually
moving
parts
or
equipment
through
them.
Therefore,
the
fact
that
the
floor
facilities
open
doors
to
move
parts
in
and
out
of
the
PTE
does
not
mean
they
do
not
meet
the
requirements
of
EPA
Method
204.
In
addition,
we
reviewed
the
compliance
determinations
for
two
of
the
floor
facilities.
Our
review
did
not
reveal
any
conditions
that
would
indicate
that
the
requirements
of
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51
are
not
being
met.
Comment:
The
commenters
stated
that
the
facilities
that
manufacture
large
parts
using
open
molding
or
pultrusion
are
not
similar
to
the
floor
facilities
that
are
the
basis
of
the
capture
and
control
requirements
for
the
new
source
floors.
They
stated
that
the
facilities
used
to
set
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
requirement
only
manufacture
small
parts
and,
therefore,
should
not
be
used
to
set
a
capture
and
control
floor
requirement
for
facilities
making
large
parts.
They
also
stated
that
achieving
100
percent
capture
is
not
feasible
for
large
parts
sources
in
these
process
groups.
Though
EPA
had
cited
facilities
that
coated
large
parts
in
permanent
total
enclosures
(
PTE),
coating
operations
cannot
be
considered
similar
to
the
manufacture
of
reinforced
plastic
composites.
They
suggested
that
any
part
with
any
dimension
that
exceeds
12
feet
be
considered
a
large
part
and
be
exempt
from
capture
and
control
requirements.
Response:
After
reviewing
the
comments
and
available
data,
we
have
determined
that
the
facilities
currently
achieving
95
percent
capture
and
control
are
not
similar
to
sources
producing
large
parts.
At
proposal,
we
noted
that
we
had
not
identified
any
facilities
in
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
industry
where
processes
producing
large
parts,
such
as
storage
tanks
and
swimming
pools,
have
applied
100
percent
efficient
capture
systems,
but
stated
our
belief
that
such
PTE
were
technically
feasible
based
on
large
PTE
in
other
industries.
We
reviewed
available
data
on
the
facilities
in
our
database
and
found
that
facilities
producing
parts
over
a
certain
size
presented
different
technical
issues
from
facilities
that
have
successfully
incorporated
95
percent
capture
and
control.
As
noted
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
one
of
these
facilities
has
a
PTE
large
enough
to
produce
large
parts.
However,
the
air
flows
and
HAP
concentrations
exiting
the
PTE
at
this
facility
are
not
the
same
as
would
be
expected
from
a
facility
using
a
similar
sized
PTE
to
capture
and
control
emissions
from
large
parts
production.
We
also
noted
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
that
surface
coating
operations
for
very
large
parts
(
as
large
as
ocean
going
ships)
had
successfully
applied
PTE.
However,
we
agree
that
coating
operations
and
reinforced
plastic
composites
operations
are
not
similar
sources.
Reinforced
plastic
composites
production
typically
requires
more
workers
per
part
due
to
the
necessity
to
both
apply
and
roll­
out
the
resin.
Also,
large
parts
are
continuously
laminated
until
completion
rather
than
coated
in
sections.
This
difference
in
sources,
while
applicable
to
evaluating
floors
based
on
capture
and
control,
does
not
exist
in
the
case
of
floors
based
on
pollutionprevention
technologies
such
as
the
use
of
low­
HAP
materials
and
nonatomized
resin
application.
For
that
reason,
we
did
not
differentiate
between
large
and
small
parts
when
setting
floors
based
on
pollution­
prevention
control
techniques
for
either
new
or
existing
sources.
Because
we
determined
that
capture
and
control
was
not
the
appropriate
floor
for
large
parts
manufacture,
the
floors
for
these
specific
operations
are
now
the
same
as
the
floors
for
existing
operation,
which
are
emission
limits
based
on
the
use
of
low­
HAP
materials
and
nonatomized
resin
application.
However,
we
do
not
agree
with
the
commenter's
suggested
definition
of
large
parts,
because
it
would
exempt
parts
from
capture
and
control
requirements
where
those
requirements
have
already
been
demonstrated.
The
largest
part
produced
at
a
facility
where
95
percent
capture
and
control
is
demonstrated
has
a
volume
of
250
cubic
feet.
If
this
part
were
placed
in
a
rectangular
six­
sided
box,
the
largest
side
of
the
box
would
be
50
square
feet.
Therefore
we
chose
these
criteria
as
the
definition
of
a
large
part
for
open
molding.
For
pultrusion,
the
largest
part
produced
by
a
facility
with
95
percent
capture
and
control
was
2
inches
high,
10
inches
wide,
and
had
approximately
350
reinforcements.
Therefore,
we
choose
these
criteria
as
the
definition
for
large
pultruded
parts.
Comment:
Several
commenters
stated
that
capture
and
control
requirements
would
make
it
difficult
for
facilities
to
meet
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
worker
health
and
safety
requirements.
Process
enclosures
at
current
facilities
are
designed
and
operated
to
provide
safe
and
efficient
production
of
composite
products.
The
primary
purpose
of
enclosures
in
this
industry
is
to
remove
contaminated
air
from
the
workplace
to
achieve
OSHA
requirements
for
limiting
occupational
exposures.
Enclosures
must
also
allow
enough
cool
air
to
enter
the
workplace
so
that
workers
are
not
subject
to
excessive
heat
stress.
One
commenter
provided
a
study
that
stated
that
if
process
enclosure
exhaust
flows
were
reduced
to
increase
exhaust
concentrations
being
routed
to
the
control
device,
worker
exposure
to
contaminants
and
heat
would
be
increased
to
unacceptable
levels.
Response:
The
use
of
PTE
for
capture
of
HAP
emissions
should
not
result
in
increased
worker
exposure
to
contaminants
or
heat
stress
if
appropriate
precautions
are
taken.
As
previously
noted,
one
solution
is
to
design
the
spray
enclosures
based
on
meeting
worker
exposure
requirements,
and
then
enclosing
the
entire
lamination
area
in
a
PTE.
The
facilities
currently
using
PTE
do
not
exceed
OSHA
exposure
guidelines.
Experience
in
the
printing
and
publishing
industry
shows
that
use
of
PTE,
in
many
cases,
results
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00067
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19388
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
in
reduced
worker
exposure
to
both
contaminants
and
heat
stress.
In
high
heat
and
humidity
areas,
it
is
likely
that
some
type
of
air
cooling
will
be
required
during
summer.
However,
this
issue
is
present
even
without
the
requirement
for
capture
and
control.
Comment:
Five
commenters
stated
that
the
limit
of
tooling
gel
coats
(
38
percent
HAP)
is
not
achievable.
One
commenter
claimed
that
we
set
this
limit
based
on
one
infrequently
used
product
that
is
not
representative
of
the
industry
as
a
whole.
The
commenter's
products
represent
70
percent
of
the
tooling
gel
coat
market
and
the
maximum
HAP
contents
range
from
42
to
50
percent
HAP.
Their
lower
HAP
gel
coat
has
not
gained
a
significant
market
acceptance.
They
have
performed
2
years
of
research
and
development
efforts
aimed
at
developing
a
lower­
HAP
gel
coat
that
would
meet
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
and
have
been
unsuccessful.
They
stated
we
had
not
independently
tested
the
product
on
which
the
standard
is
based,
so
there
has
been
no
demonstration
of
the
product's
quality
or
suitability
for
broad
use
in
the
industry.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
setting
the
standard
at
38
percent
would
have
the
effect
of
encouraging
manufacturers
of
tooling
gel
coats
to
use
para
methyl
styrene,
which
is
not
regulated
as
a
HAP,
as
a
substitute.
Also,
lower­
HAP
gel
coats
may
be
less
durable
than
products
currently
on
the
market,
which
would
result
in
reduced
mold
life.
Therefore,
more
molds
would
have
to
be
built
to
produce
the
same
amount
of
product.
This
would
result
in
the
standard
actually
causing
a
HAP
emissions
increase.
This
commenter
requested
a
tooling
gel
coat
HAP
limit
of
52
percent
HAP
for
clear
gel
coats
and
49
percent
for
pigmented
gel
coats.
A
second
commenter
asked
that
EPA
consider
tooling
gel
coats
as
speciality
gel
coats
exempt
from
HAP
limits
similar
to
the
speciality
coating
exemption
contained
in
the
Aerospace
Coating
MACT
standards
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
GG).
This
commenter
stated
there
is
a
strong
possibility
they
will
discontinue
manufacturing
tooling
gel
coats
if
the
standard
is
not
changed.
Another
commenter
stated
that
we
must
allow
higher
HAP
limits
for
tooling
applications
in
vacuum
resin
infusion,
compression,
and
resin
transfer
molding
composite
tool
applications,
where
high
exotherms
and
heated
tools
are
required.
Durability
of
the
mold
surface
is
essential
to
the
longevity
of
the
mold.
Thermal
stability
is
a
key
element
that
requires
higher­
HAP
content.
Repeated
high
exotherms
during
the
cure
cycles
can
greatly
reduce
the
life
of
low­
HAP
gel
coats.
Greater
porosity
found
in
the
low­
HAP
materials
can
also
create
mold
surface
problems.
Ironically,
these
are
closed
molding
processes,
which
result
in
much
lower
HAP
emissions
and
employee
exposures
than
open
molding
processes.
Closed
molding
facilities
will
not
be
able
to
offset
the
small
amounts
of
high­
HAP
tooling
gel
coat
used
in
tool
production
with
large
amounts
of
low­
HAP
general
purpose
open
molding
resins
using
facility
averaging.
The
commenter
recommends
that
the
final
MACT
standards
allow
up
to
48
percent
HAP
content
for
pigmented
tooling
gel
coats.
Response:
We
have
received
additional
data
since
proposal.
Based
on
these
data,
we
increased
the
floor
for
tooling
gel
coats
to
40
percent.
We
obtained
very
little
data
from
industry
on
tooling
gel
coats
in
the
original
data
requests
and
in
additional
efforts
to
obtain
additional
tooling
gel
coat
data.
To
supplement
the
limited
data,
we
looked
at
the
tooling
gel
coat
data
used
in
developing
the
Boat
Manufacturing
MACT
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV).
This
is
a
reasonable
approach
because
gel
coat
manufacturers
stated
that
they
sold
the
same
tooling
gel
coats
in
both
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
and
boat
manufacturing
industries.
The
revised
HAP
content
limit
of
40
percent
is
the
same
as
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
HAP
content
limit
for
tooling
gel
coats.
We
considered
the
issue
raised
by
the
commenters
that
a
low
limit
in
tooling
gel
coats
would
actually
increase
HAP
emissions.
While
we
agree
that
more
frequent
replacement
of
inferior
molds
would
lead
to
increased
HAP
emissions,
the
factual
data
do
not
indicate
that
a
40
percent
HAP
content
limit
results
in
inferior
molds.
Facilities
in
the
field
(
both
reinforced
plastic
composite
manufacturers
and
boat
manufacturers)
are
building
molds
with
40
percent
HAP
tooling
gel
coat.
We
have
no
data
to
indicate
that
these
facilities
are
producing
lower
quality
molds
than
average,
and
none
of
the
commenters
has
been
able
to
provide
objective
data
to
substantiate
that
reduced
mold
life
is
inevitable
with
low­
HAP
gel
coats.
The
information
provided
was
based
on
assumed
reduction
in
mold
life.
Also,
the
fact
that
one
of
the
commenters
covers
70
percent
of
the
market
is
irrelevant,
because
MACT
floors
are
set
based
on
best
control,
not
market
share.
In
the
absence
of
objective
data
that
the
facilities
that
use
low­
HAP
tooling
gel
coats
produce
inferior
molds
with
shorter
mold
lives
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
industry,
the
MACT
floor
must
be
set
based
on
the
best
performing
facilities.
In
this
case,
that
results
in
a
floor
of
40
percent
HAP.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
although
clear
cultured
marble
gel
coats
have
been
formulated
with
HAP
levels
as
low
as
40
percent,
the
tolerance
for
thermal
shock
and
water
resistance
are
lowered
with
lower­
HAP
levels.
According
to
the
commenter,
48
percent
HAP
clear
coat
is
required
for
manufacturers
to
maintain
current
warranties
and
many
have
switched
back
to
the
high­
HAP
clear
gel
coats
due
to
the
poor
performance
of
the
lower­
HAP
clear
gel
coats.
The
commenter
suggests
that
``
clear
gel
coats
for
cultured
marble''
should
be
defined
as
``
those
used
for
products
subject
to
ANSI
Z124
testing''
and
the
rule
should
limit
the
HAP
content
of
these
materials
to
48
percent.
A
second
commenter
also
stated
that
a
48
percent
HAP
content
is
necessary
to
meet
desired
gel
coat
performance.
The
commenter
claims
that
the
proposed
limit
of
44
percent
does
not
take
into
account
the
entire
spectrum
of
uses
and
does
not
satisfy
the
requirements
of
their
applications.
Response:
We
are
bound
by
the
statutory
requirements
of
the
CAA
to
set
MACT
floors
based
on
the
average
of
the
best
performing
sources
as
illustrated
in
the
available
data.
In
the
absence
of
specific
data
to
support
the
request,
we
have
no
basis
to
change
the
floor.
In
developing
different
process
product
grouping
for
gel
coats,
we
did
consider
the
different
performance
characteristics
of
different
types
of
gel
coat.
These
types
were
tooling
gel
coat,
clear
gel
coat,
pigmented
gel
coat
(
white/
off
white),
pigmented
gel
coat
(
all
colors
except
white/
off
white),
fire
retardant
gel
coat,
and
corrosion
resistant/
high
strength
gel
coat.
Based
on
information
provided
by
industry,
we
determined
that
these
different
gel
coat
types
had
sufficiently
different
characteristics
that
they
should
be
considered
separately
for
floor
determinations.
However,
we
do
not
have
data
to
demonstrate
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
further
subcategorize
clear
gel
coats
based
on
each
gel
coat's
performance
characteristics.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
only
the
white/
off­
white
and
some
pastels
can
meet
a
floor
of
30
percent
HAP
because
of
the
titanium
dioxide
and
inert
filler
loading.
Most
solid
colors
require
a
HAP
content
of
38
to
40
percent.
Higher
performance
pigmented
gel
coats
that
require
high
molecular
weights
would,
therefore,
need
a
higher
monomer
content
to
achieve
workable
viscosities
and
would
probably
no
longer
be
available
to
the
market
place.
Response:
White/
off­
white
gel
coats
will
be
defined
as
those
containing
10
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00068
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19389
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
percent
or
more
by
weight
titanium
dioxide.
As
proposed,
these
gel
coats
will
be
subject
to
a
HAP
limit
of
30
percent
by
weight,
and
all
other
pigmented
gel
coats
will
be
subject
to
a
HAP
limit
of
37
percent
by
weight.
At
the
time
we
developed
the
proposed
rule,
we
had
no
data
on
pigmented
gel
coats
other
than
white/
off­
white
and
some
reds.
Based
on
industry
comments,
we
split
pigmented
gel
coat
into
two
groupings,
white/
offwhite
and
other
colors
due
to
the
fact
that
white/
off­
white
gel
coats
contain
titanium
dioxide,
which
is
a
heavy
pigment,
while
other
colors
do
not.
At
the
time
we
created
this
new
grouping,
we
requested
data
from
the
industry
concerning
the
HAP
contents
of
pigmented
gel
coats.
The
industry
representatives
indicated
that
these
gel
coats
typically
have
37
percent
HAP.
Because
non­
white
pigmented
gel
coats
comprise
a
very
small
part
of
the
total
industry,
we
elected
to
accept
the
37
percent
number
rather
than
attempt
to
gather
additional
data.
The
commenter
provided
no
data
to
support
their
request.
In
the
absence
of
new
data,
we
have
no
basis
to
change
this
floor.
Comment:
Two
commenters
request
that
the
category
of
fire
retardant
gel
coats
be
exempt
from
HAP
limits.
Both
commenters
note
that
fire
retardant
gel
coats
are
used
in
manufacturing
transportation
parts,
building
products,
trains,
airplane
parts,
and
theaters.
One
commenter
stated
that
these
are
all
critical
areas
of
applications
and
require
various
Underwriter
Laboratory
(
UL),
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM),
and
Fire
Rating
Certifications.
It
was
suggested
that
fire
retardant
gel
coats
be
defined
as
``
those
used
for
products
for
which
low­
flame/
low­
smoke
resin
is
used.''
Response:
We
have
added
a
process/
product
grouping
for
fire
retardant
gel
coats.
These
gel
coats
are
defined
as
gel
coats
used
in
low­
flame
spread/
lowsmoke
product
applications.
We
have
established
a
HAP
emissions
limit
of
854
lb/
ton
which
is
equivalent
to
gel
coats
with
a
maximum
HAP
content
of
60
percent
using
atomized
application.
Comment:
Four
commenters
stated
that
we
need
to
establish
a
separate
process/
product
grouping
for
corrosionresistant
gel
coats.
The
commenters
stated
that
gel
coats
used
in
specific
corrosion
protection
applications
must
meet
the
same
requirements
as
corrosion­
resistant
resin.
One
commenter
added
that
gel
coats
requiring
chemical
resistance
to
a
wide
range
of
chemicals
including
acids,
bases,
and
solvents
are
often
based
on
the
resins
similar
to
those
that
make
up
the
structural
part
of
the
composite
and
provide
the
necessary
corrosion
resistance.
For
this
reason,
the
commenters
believe
that
the
HAP
limitation
for
corrosion­
resistant
gel
coats
should
be
48
percent,
the
same
as
it
was
in
the
proposed
rule
for
lamination
resins
used
to
make
corrosion­
resistant
composites.
It
was
suggested
that
``
corrosion­
resistant
gel
coats''
be
defined
as
``
those
used
for
products
made
with
corrosion­
resistant
resin''
and
that
the
rule
limit
the
HAP
content
of
these
materials
to
48
percent.
Response:
We
agree
that
there
are
technical
limitations
for
corrosionresistant
applications
that
warrant
a
separate
limit
for
corrosion­
resistant
gel
coats,
similar
to
the
separate
limits
established
for
other
specialty
resins
and
coatings.
In
the
final
rule,
we
established
a
separate
HAP
content
limit
of
48
percent
for
corrosion­
resistant
gel
coats
and
defined
them
as
``
those
gel
coats
used
to
manufacture
products
made
from
corrosion­
resistant
resin.''
We
believe
48
percent
HAP
is
the
appropriate
number
because
the
highest
HAP
content
level
allowed
in
all
the
corrosion­
resistant
resin
process/
product
groupings
is
48
percent.
Comment:
Several
commenters
stated
that
we
need
an
additional
process/
product
grouping
for
low­
shrink
resins.
These
resins
have
special
shrinkage
control
properties
that
are
unique
and
cannot
be
obtained
in
any
other
way.
These
resins
were
not
identified
when
EPA
surveyed
the
industry.
One
commenter
stated
that
a
specialty
process
group
is
needed
for
high
molecular
weight,
low­
shrink
resins
used
in
wind
turbine
blade
manufacturing.
The
resin
currently
in
use
is
42
percent
HAP
unfilled.
The
facility
would
be
unable
to
gain
any
relief
by
facility
averaging
because
the
facility
predominantly
uses
zero­
HAP
epoxy
resin,
rather
than
a
low­
HAP
production
resin.
Commenters
requested
that
EPA
create
a
subcategory
for
these
resins
with
a
maximum
HAP
level
of
48
to
52
percent.
Response:
Our
understanding
is
that
these
low­
shrink
resins
are
highly
filled
resins
with
special
chemistry
that
allows
them
to
cure
at
room
temperature
with
significantly
less
shrinkage
than
a
typical
resin.
Given
the
unique
properties
of
this
resin,
we
agree
that
a
separate
process/
product
grouping
is
appropriate.
The
resin
manufacturer
indicated
that
the
maximum
HAP
content
of
the
resin
is
50
percent.
Therefore,
we
have
set
HAP
emissions
limits
for
shrinkage­
controlled
resins
that
allow
up
to
50
percent
HAP.
This
specialty
resin
costs
significantly
more
than
other
resins,
which
provides
a
deterrent
for
facilities
using
the
resin
where
its
special
properties
are
not
necessary.
Comment:
One
commenter
believes
higher
HAP
limits
are
needed
for
the
filament
application
of
corrosionresistant
products.
The
commenter
claims
that
the
rule,
as
proposed,
will
eliminate
use
of
certain
types
of
corrosion­
resistant
resins
that
impart
required
properties
to
certain
applications.
The
commenter
noted
that
the
proposed
limit
for
corrosionresistant
filament
application
resins
was
lower
than
for
noncorrosion­
resistant
filament
application
resins.
The
commenter
believes
that
the
HAP
emissions
limit
for
all
categories
of
filament
application
should
be
178
lb/
ton,
and
stated
that
this
change
will
have
insignificant
impact
on
EPA's
total
HAP
emissions
reductions
target,
with
the
difference
in
HAP
emissions
reductions
being
3
tpy.
Another
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
MACT
of
42
percent
HAP
cannot
be
met
with
an
isophthalic
resin
without
some
compromise
to
the
physical
properties
of
the
cured
resin.
The
commenter
requested
EPA
to
consider
the
48
percent
HAP
limit
found
in
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District
(
SCAQMD)
Rule
1162.
Response:
While
we
acknowledge
the
commenters
concerns,
we
developed
the
floor
for
this
process/
product
grouping
in
the
same
manner
as
floors
for
other
process/
product
groupings
in
open
molding.
We
gathered
data
from
industry
and
ranked
the
performance
of
the
facilities
in
the
corrosion­
resistant
process
group
and
set
the
MACT
floor
based
on
the
average
of
the
best
12
percent,
as
required
by
law.
Though
we
are
not
changing
the
floor
for
filament
application,
we
are
retaining
a
provision
included
in
the
proposed
rule
that
allows
facilities
to
use
the
same
resin
in
multiple
processes.
The
rationale
for
this
provision
is,
while
our
floor
development
ranking
procedure
is
correct,
we
also
realize
it
does
not
account
for
the
fact
that
some
facilities
use
multiple
operations
to
produce
components
of
the
final
product,
and
the
resins
used
in
the
subcomponents
must
be
compatible.
This
provision
will
allow
most
facilities
the
flexibility
to
use
the
necessary
level
of
HAP
in
corrosion­
resistant
applications
because
mechanical
operations
have
a
higher­
HAP
content
limit.
Comment:
One
commenter
recommended
that
the
model
point
value
for
corrosion­
resistant
manual
resin
application
be
changed
from
124
to
190
to
reflect
the
use
of
the
same
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00069
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19390
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
percent
HAP
used
in
mechanical
resin
application.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
facility
that
sets
the
floor
using
a
40
percent
HAP
resin
is
not
typical
of
a
true
corrosion­
resistant
(
CR)
company
because
that
facility
uses
only
manual
application,
while
true
CR
companies
use
both
manual
and
mechanical
application
techniques.
A
second
commenter
requested
that
the
MACT
floor
for
manual
corrosion­
resistant
resin
be
changed
so
that
it
is
the
same
as
the
floor
for
mechanical
corrosionresistant
resin.
Response:
As
discussed
in
the
previous
response,
the
floor
is
based
on
the
data
available
for
this
process/
product
grouping.
However,
as
with
filament
application,
the
provision
allowing
facilities
to
use
the
same
resin
in
multiple
operations
should
allow
enough
flexibility
for
facilities
to
meet
rule
requirements,
but
still
produce
products
with
the
necessary
properties.
Therefore,
facilities
that
produce
corrosion­
resistant
and
noncorrosionresistant
products
using
both
manual
and
mechanical
resin
application
will
be
able
to
use
the
same
resin
in
both
operations.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
proposed
MACT
of
35.5
percent
HAP
for
noncorrosion­
resistant
centrifugal
casting
would
result
in
a
resin
too
high
in
viscosity,
which
may
create
air
release
problems.
The
commenter
states
that
lower
molecular
weight
resins
would
cause
some
limitations
in
physical
property
requirements.
Response:
We
received
new
data
that
changed
the
floor
for
centrifugal
casting
to
37.5
percent
HAP.
With
less
than
30
facilities
in
the
process
group
for
which
we
have
data,
the
MACT
floor
must
represent
the
average
performance
of
the
top
five
facilities.
We
have
no
data
to
support
raising
the
floor
any
further.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
they
believe
that
new
operations
should
be
subject
to
new
source
MACT
even
if
they
are
added
to
an
existing
source.
The
commenter
understands
that
there
are
cases
in
which
the
new
equipment
may
be
incorporated
within
an
existing
manufacturing
line,
making
it
difficult
to
employ
separate
controls
(
e.
g.,
if
all
the
equipment
is
controlled
at
a
later
end
point).
The
commenter
suggests,
however,
that
separate
and
more
specific
provisions
can
be
included
in
the
rule
to
govern
such
cases.
Response:
This
comment
is
only
applicable
to
new
source
MACT
for
specified
processes
that
emit
over
100
tpy,
because
below
that
level,
new
source
and
existing
source
MACT
are
the
same.
We
believe
that,
for
this
particular
industry,
the
ability
of
a
facility
to
incorporate
the
capture
and
control
requirements
of
new
source
MACT
for
larger
facilities
is
closely
related
to
the
structure
housing
the
process,
because
the
size
and
shape
of
the
existing
building
affects
the
layout
of
the
production
line.
Even
if
there
are
significant
process
changes,
this
by
itself
would
not
indicate
that
the
building
housing
the
process
has
been
changed,
thereby
making
retrofit
of
capture
and
control
systems
unfairly
difficult
compared
to
a
new
greenfield
facility.
We
believe
that
attempting
to
develop
a
detailed
set
of
requirements
that
could
cover
every
situation
would
be
unrealistic.
We
agree
that
this
provision
may
result
in
small
facilities
being
able
to
grow
significantly
without
becoming
new
sources.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
in
the
final
rule,
we
have
overridden
the
portion
of
the
general
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
63
which
states
that
facilities
that
move
are
still
considered
existing.
Because
we
believe
the
cost
and
technical
feasibility
of
capture
and
control
are
closely
related
to
the
building
housing
the
process,
we
believe
that
a
facility
that
moves
should
be
considered
a
new
source
because
they
can
plan
for
capture
and
control
prior
to
erecting
or
selecting
a
new
building.
Therefore,
facilities
that
would
be
considered
existing
sources
under
the
general
provisions
will
be
considered
to
be
new
sources
under
the
final
rule.
Therefore,
in
this
aspect,
the
final
NESHAP
are
more
stringent.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
clarification
in
this
rule
on
which
operations
at
a
reinforced
plastics
composites
facility
and
which
operations
at
a
boat
building
facility
will
be
covered
by
this
rule
and
which
will
be
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV
(
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP).
It
was
noted
that
neither
the
preamble
nor
the
proposed
rule
explicitly
states
whether
this
rule
applies
to
manufacturing
of
boats
or
boat
components
and
requested
that
language
be
added
to
the
final
rule
clarifying
that
this
rule
does
not
apply
to
any
processes
or
operations
subject
to
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV.
One
commenter
stated
that
boat
building
plants
routinely
produce
non­
boat
parts
and
presumed
that
such
facilities
will
be
required
to
meet
the
composites
rule
when
producing
composite
parts
that
are
not
associated
with
the
manufacture
of
boats.
The
commenter
also
points
out
that
some
composite
plants
produce
boat
parts
that
are
then
used
to
build
boats,
such
as
when
producing
barge
covers
that
are
related
to
the
manufacture
of
river
barges.
Response:
We
have
added
§
63.5787
to
the
final
rule
to
specifically
address
this
issue.
A
facility
must
produce
boat
hulls
and
decks,
or
molds
for
boat
hulls
and
decks,
to
be
covered
by
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV).
If
it
produces
reinforced
plastic
composites,
as
defined
in
the
final
rule,
and
is
not
covered
by
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP,
then
it
is
covered
by
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
NESHAP,
regardless
of
the
final
use
of
the
parts.
In
the
case
where
a
facility
is
subject
to
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV),
but
the
facility
also
makes
parts
that
are
not
a
component
of
their
boats,
then
the
nonboat
parts
are
covered
by
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
NESHAP.
However,
only
resins
and
gel
coats
actually
used
to
make
parts
covered
by
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
NESHAP
are
considered
in
determining
compliance.
In
addition,
in
order
to
simplify
compliance,
we
are
allowing
facilities
that
are
subject
to
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV)
and
that
also
make
parts
subject
to
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
NESHAP,
to
elect
to
make
all
their
manufacturing
operations
subject
to
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
if
they
can
demonstrate,
through
the
appropriate
HAP
emissions
calculations,
that
this
will
not
result
in
any
HAP
emissions
increases
over
what
would
occur
if
they
complied
with
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
NESHAP
for
non­
boat
part
production.
We
also
clarify
that
HAP
emissions
from
activities
covered
by
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
are
not
considered
when
calculating
HAP
emissions
thresholds
to
determine
the
applicability
of
add­
on
controls.
Comment:
One
commenter
requested
that
the
rule
explain
what
happens
in
instances
where
the
100
tpy
threshold
is
exceeded
even
by
a
little,
temporarily.
Does
this
require
that
add­
on
controls
be
installed?
Response:
It
is
our
intent
that
unusual
circumstances
result
in
a
facility
having
to
add
and
operate
add­
on
controls.
We
have
included
clarifying
language
in
the
final
rule
that
allows
a
one­
time
exemption
to
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
requirements
for
facilities
that
were
below
the
100
tpy
threshold
and
exceed
the
threshold
due
to
unusual
circumstances.
This
exemption
allows
facilities
to
average
annual
HAP
emissions
over
3
years
to
determine
if
they
exceed
the
threshold.
However,
facilities
are
also
required
to
document
the
unusual
circumstances
that
caused
the
exceedance,
and
why
they
expect
to
remain
below
the
threshold
in
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00070
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19391
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
future.
If
they
exceed
the
threshold
a
second
time,
then
the
exemption
is
immediately
withdrawn
and
they
must
comply
with
the
95
percent
capture
and
control
requirements
within
3
years
from
when
they
originally
exceeded
the
threshold.
Comment:
Two
commenters
requested
clarification
of
several
issues
related
to
repair
work.
They
are
assuming
the
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
cover
manufacturing
operations
only.
Repair
processes
conducted
in
a
manufacturing
facility
are
also
covered
because
they
are
likely
to
use
the
same
materials.
If
the
processes
conducted
are
remanufacturing
refurbishment,
repair,
or
maintenance,
it
will
be
considered
repair
for
the
final
NESHAP.
The
exception
would
be
if
the
repair
is
a
part
which
frequently
needs
replacement
and
is
made
in
an
assembly­
line
type
process.
They
also
asked
that
since
there
is
no
de­
minimums
level,
if
any
manufacturing
is
done,
would
it
be
covered?
They
noted
that
at
some
of
the
commenter's
facilities,
some
minor
manufacturing
may
occur.
The
repair
work
that
may
also
be
done
at
the
same
facility
is
not
related
to
the
manufacturing
processes
(
and
would
be
using
different
resin
and
reinforcing
materials.)
The
commenter
believes
that
as
the
rule
is
currently
written,
both
the
manufacturing
and
repair
operations
would
be
covered.
The
commenter
does
not
believe
that
is
EPA's
intent
and
asked
if
we
could
develop
language
to
correct
that.
One
commenter
stated
that
definitions
of
repair
and
manufacturing
should
be
added
to
clarify
the
types
of
repair
and
manufacturing
covered
by
the
rule.
The
preamble
and
rule
should
be
consistent
in
stating
that
the
facilities
that
only
repair
composites
are
not
affected.
The
commenter
also
feels
that
repair
operations
collocated
with
unrelated
manufacturing
operations
should
not
be
covered
either.
In
a
related
comment,
several
commenters
asked
that
a
lowuse
cutoff
be
established
so
that
facilities
that
use
small
amounts
of
resin
and
gel
coat
are
not
subject
to
the
rule,
especially
since
those
uses
may
be
incidental
to
a
completely
different
manufacturing
operation.
Response:
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
make
explicit
what
repair
operations
are
and
are
not
covered.
Specifically,
facilities
at
which
only
repair
occurs
are
not
covered
by
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
repair
of
previously
manufactured
reinforced
plastic
composites
unrelated
to
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
manufactured
at
the
facility
are
also
not
covered
by
the
final
rule.
Repair
processes
on
parts
that
are
manufactured
at
the
same
location
are
covered
by
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
we
have
added
a
low­
use
cutoff
exemption
to
the
final
rule.
We
reviewed
our
entire
database
and
determined
that
we
had
no
data
for
facilities
that
use
less
than
1.2
tpy
of
resin
and
gel
coat
combined.
Therefore,
we
believe
that,
in
the
absence
of
any
available
data,
facilities
that
use
less
than
1.2
tpy
of
resin
and
gel
coat
to
produce
reinforced
plastic
composite
products
or
components
should
be
exempt
from
the
final
rule.
Comment:
Many
commenters
requested
that
the
rule
incorporate
an
exemption
for
R&
D
facilities,
and
for
R&
D
operations
collocated
with
manufacturing
operations.
The
materials
used
in
R&
D
operation
may
be
significantly
different
from
those
used
in
manufacturing.
Response:
We
have
written
the
final
rule
to
exempt
R&
D
facilities
and
R&
D
operations.
The
definition
of
R&
D
is
the
same
as
contained
in
section
112(
c)(
7)
of
the
CAA.
Comment:
Several
commenters
stated
that
they
believe
the
EPA
cannot
set
different
standards
for
small
and
large
businesses
based
on
the
size
of
the
business,
rather
than
the
size
of
the
source.
They
believe
that
because
the
CAA
clearly
identifies
``
major
source''
by
the
level
of
HAP
emissions,
MACT
floors
must
depend
on
the
average
HAP
emissions
reductions
by
the
best
sources
without
regard
to
cost
factors
of
business
size.
They
stated
that
this
distinction
was
unfair
because
two
facilities
that
emit
the
same
amount
of
HAP
would
potentially
have
different
requirements
solely
on
the
basis
of
their
ownership.
The
commenter
also
believes
that
EPA
did
not
adequately
support
the
determination
that
large
businesses
have
better
access
to
capital
than
small
businesses.
They
stated
that
this
is
not
necessarily
true.
Response:
Based
on
the
revised
cost
analysis,
we
have
determined
that
it
is
no
longer
necessary
to
distinguish
between
small
and
large
businesses.
However,
we
still
believe
the
use
of
different
thresholds
in
the
proposed
rule
was
appropriate
because
this
distinction
only
applied
to
the
above­
the­
floor
regulatory
option.
The
CAA
specifically
states
that
when
we
go
above
the
floor,
we
must
consider
costs.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
small
business
threshold
of
250
tpy
should
apply
to
both
existing
and
new
sources.
New
capital
funding
to
build
a
new
facility
would
require
due
diligence
on
the
part
of
the
lending
institution.
The
new
facility
would
have
to
generate
enough
cash
flow
to
meet
the
added
debt
load.
Adding
a
capture
and
control
system
to
the
debt
load
would
significantly
reduce
the
cash
flow
available
to
pay
back
the
lender's
note
on
a
new
facility
because
the
capture
and
control
system
is
a
nonvalue
added
asset.
The
lending
institution
would
discern
this
and
deny
the
loan.
Response:
For
new
sources,
the
proposed
(
and
final
standard)
is
the
MACT
floor,
not
an
above­
the­
floor
option.
We
do
not
have
the
flexibility
to
create
small
and
large
business
distinctions
when
the
standard
is
set
at
the
MACT
floor.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
for
new
sources
does
not
incorporate
a
small
and
large
business
distinction.
Comment:
Several
commenters
stated
that
a
method
to
establish
percent
reduction
and
HAP
emissions
factors
is
needed
to
foster
the
development
of
new
products
and
equipment
to
serve
the
affected
industry.
They
recommended
that
EPA
establish
a
protocol
to
allow
the
smooth
introduction
of
equipment,
products,
and
other
technologies
into
the
final
rule.
Response:
Allowing
facilities
to
use
site­
specific
HAP
emissions
factors,
and
the
procedure
in
the
general
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A,
that
allows
facilities
to
demonstrate
equivalent
HAP
emissions
reductions,
adequately
address
the
incorporation
of
new
HAP
emissions
reduction
technologies.
However,
we
have
added
§
63.5798
to
the
final
rule
that
discusses
how
to
obtain
approval
for
new
technologies.
Comment:
Two
commenters
requested
that
EPA
change
the
averaging
provisions
to
allow
a
facility
that
changes
some
processes
to
non­
styrene
containing
resins
to
average
these
resins
with
the
styrene­
containing
resins
to
demonstrate
compliance.
Response:
We
do
not
believe
it
would
be
appropriate
to
allow
the
use
of
nonstyrene
containing
resins
and
gel
coats
to
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
compliance.
The
MACT
floors
were
developed
only
considering
resins
and
gel
coats
that
contain
styrene
(
and
other
organic
HAP,
such
as
MMA)
used
at
the
facilities
in
our
database.
We
did
not
consider
non­
styrene
resins
and
gel
coats
used
at
our
database
facilities.
Given
the
basis
for
developing
the
standards,
it
is
inconsistent
to
allow
non­
styrene
containing
resins
and
gel
coats
to
be
used
in
the
compliance
calculations.
Therefore,
we
have
not
added
this
request
to
the
final
rule.
Comment:
Numerous
commenters
recommended
replacing
the
point
value
system
with
the
Composite
Manufacturers
Association
(
CFA)
UEF
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00071
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19392
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
table.
The
composites
industry
is
already
using
these
HAP
emissions
factors
to
calculate
annual
HAP
emissions.
It
would
simplify
reporting
and
recordkeeping
if
one
set
of
HAP
emissions
factor
equations
were
used.
Another
commenter
stated
that
if
EPA
uses
the
UEF,
all
HAP
should
be
treated
as
styrene
because
this
is
how
EPA
developed
the
MACT
floors.
They
noted
that
these
factors
are
used
by
industry
for
toxic
release
inventory
reporting
and
obtaining
permits.
According
to
the
commenters,
use
of
these
factors
for
MACT
will
reduce
the
paperwork
burden
for
small
manufacturers.
Response:
We
reviewed
the
UEF
and
the
basis
for
their
development.
Based
on
this
review,
we
believe
that
these
equations
are
acceptable
for
estimating
both
HAP
emissions
factors
for
compliance
purposes
and
HAP
emissions.
As
a
result,
in
the
final
rule
we
have
written
the
HAP
emissions
factor
equations
in
Table
1
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
to
be
identical
to
their
equivalent
UEF
equations.
Therefore,
facilities
will
have
one
set
of
identical
factors
for
both
compliance
and
HAP
emissions
estimation
purposes.
Because
of
this
change,
it
was
necessary
to
recalculate
the
floor
values
by
recalculating
HAP
emissions
factors
using
the
new
HAP
emissions
factor
equations
for
the
facilities
in
our
database
and
reranking
the
facilities
based
on
the
new
calculations.
Therefore,
both
the
numerical
values
of
the
floors
(
lb/
ton)
and
the
equations
used
to
calculate
compliance
changed.
Note
the
floors
themselves
did
not
change
significantly
because
when
we
reranked
facilities
using
the
new
HAP
emissions
factors,
the
ranking
order
did
not
change
with
two
exceptions.
In
those
cases,
the
new
equations
caused
two
facilities
to
switch
places
and
changed
the
floor
slightly.
However,
these
changes
were
minor
compared
to
the
changes
that
resulted
from
other
comments
we
received
and
additional
data
we
gathered.
In
addition,
we
have
added
to
the
final
rule
equations
for
the
nonatomized
gel
coat
application
and
for
the
mechanical
atomized
controlled
spraying
of
resins.
We
have
incorporated
the
latter
UEF
equation
in
the
final
rule
so
that
it
is
applicable
only
where
the
controlled
spray
is
achieved
through
automated
or
robotic,
not
manual,
spraying.
Finally,
we
are
incorporating
only
the
UEF
equations
developed
for
styrene
and
not
those
developed
for
MMA.
We
are
doing
this
because
the
data
analysis
forming
the
basis
of
the
standards
assumed
all
organic
HAP
to
be
styrene.
This
is
a
reasonable
assumption
as
the
amount
of
MMA
used
is
a
very
small
percentage
of
the
total
HAP
monomer
used.
Comment:
One
commenter
noted
that
the
proposed
rule
does
not
provide
for
manual
application
of
gel
coats.
Many
gel
coats
are
applied
manually
as
exterior
coatings
when
the
major
component
part
is
made.
The
rule
should
require
that
for
HAP
emissions
calculations
from
manual
application,
gel
coat
should
be
considered
as
a
resin
with
the
stated
HAP
content
and
the
appropriate
point
value
equation
should
be
used.
Companies
where
manual
gel
coat
application
is
less
than
2
percent
of
the
total
gel
coat
usage
should
be
exempt
from
maintaining
records
of
manual
application.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
proposed
rule
did
not
provide
an
equation
to
estimate
HAP
emissions
from
the
manual
application
of
gel
coats
and
that
the
rule
needs
to
address
this.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
addressed
this
issue
by
allowing
two
options.
First,
the
facility
may
elect
to
simply
include
manuallyapplied
gel
coat
with
spray
gel
coat
application
for
compliance
and
HAP
emissions
estimation
purposes.
Alternatively,
they
can
elect
to
treat
the
gel
coat
as
spray
for
compliance
purposes,
but
use
the
manual
resin
application
HAP
emissions
factor
to
estimate
HAP
emissions.
We
believe
the
changes
discussed
above
are
sufficient
to
simplify
reporting
and
recordkeeping
for
manual
gel
coat
application.
Therefore,
we
have
not
added
an
exemption
for
maintaining
records
for
manual
gel
coat
application.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
sources
be
allowed
to
use
HAP
emissions
factors
in
approved
title
V
permits
to
estimate
HAP
emissions.
It
was
noted
that
the
use
of
such
factors
will
reduce
the
administrative
burden
for
sources
and
regulators
and
will
likely
improve
HAP
emissions
estimates.
One
commenter
suggested
that
such
factors
also
be
allowed
to
be
used
for
compliance
determinations.
Response:
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
believe
that
§
63.5798(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
the
final
rule
already
allow
for
the
use
of
facilityspecific
HAP
emissions
factors.
Section
63.5798(
a)(
1)
states,
in
part,
that
``
you
may
use
any
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
approved
by
us
such
as
factors
from
the
Compilation
of
Air
Pollutant
Emissions
Factors,
Volume
I:
Stationary
Point
and
Area
Sources
(
AP
 
42).''
Section
63.5798(
a)(
1)
was
not
intended
to
limit
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
only
to
the
AP
 
42.
Paragraph
(
a)(
2)
of
§
63.5789
allows
the
development
of
facility­
specific
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
through
performance
testing.
If
a
facility
has
facility­
specific
factors
that
have
been
approved
for
use
in
title
V
operating
permits,
then
those
factors
can
be
used
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
facility
is
a
major
source
under
section
112
of
the
CAA.
In
addition,
a
facility
can
use
facility­
specific
factors
for
comparison
against
applicable
HAP
emissions
limits.
We
have
written
the
language
in
§
63.5798
of
the
final
rule
to
clarify
the
use
of
such
facility­
specific
factors
and
have
added
the
provision
that
such
factors
must
be
supported
by
test
data.
Comment:
One
commenter
notes
that
the
alternative
point
values
in
Table
5
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
do
not
provide
a
realistic
alternative
to
95
percent
capture
and
control.
In
an
example
calculation
for
35
percent
styrene
resin
in
open
molding,
the
point
value
calculation
is
equivalent
to
96
percent
control,
which
is
more
stringent
than
the
add­
on
control
requirement.
Response:
While
the
values
may
not
appear
realistic
for
some
facilities,
Table
5
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
does
present
the
opportunity
to
meet
the
final
standards
using
alternative
means.
We
believe
that
the
values
in
Table
5
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
provide
incentive
to
continue
to
pursue
lower­
HAP
resins
and
gel
coats
and
other
pollution­
prevention
opportunities
and
that
even
if
only
one
facility
can
use
the
values,
then
their
inclusion
is
worthwhile.
For
these
reasons,
we
have
retained
Table
5
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63.
However,
we
have
made
minor
modifications
to
this
table.
For
process/
product
groupings
where
there
is
an
operating
facility
that
currently
meets
the
95
percent
control
requirement,
we
changed
the
value
in
Table
5
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
to
reflect
the
highest
actual
calculated
HAP
emissions
factors
for
operating
facilities.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
weighted
average
point
values
should
be
calculated
as
a
weighted
average
of
resin
used.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
the
equation
in
the
current
proposal
gives
equal
weight
to
each
month
instead
of
each
quantity
of
resin
or
gel
coat
processed.
Another
commenter
asked
for
clarification
on
how
the
``
weighted
average
floor''
is
calculated.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
12­
month
rolling
average
point
values
should
be
calculated
using
a
weighted
average
based
on
the
amount
of
resins,
rather
than
using
an
average
based
on
monthly
values,
as
was
proposed.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
incorporates
the
commenters'
suggestion.
Also,
we
have
changed
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00072
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19393
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
terminology
for
the
averaging
calculations.
We
now
use
the
term
``
emissions
factor''
when
discussing
values
calculated
using
actual
resin
and
gel
coat
HAP
contents,
and
``
emissions
limit''
when
discussing
average
values
calculated
from
the
required
floor
limits.
This
change
should
clarify
how
to
calculate
the
weighted
average
floor.
Comment:
Several
commenters
asked
that
EPA
include
a
test
method
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
vapor
suppressants.
They
suggested
that
the
CFA­
developed
vapor
suppressant
test
method
be
used.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
final
rule
should
incorporate
a
test
method
applicable
to
vapor
suppressants,
which
are
effective
at
reducing
HAP
emissions
for
many
resin
applications.
The
effectiveness
of
vapor
suppressants
varies
depending
on
the
resin
and
the
application
technique
used.
Thus,
a
single
effectiveness
value
cannot
be
assigned.
The
final
rule,
therefore,
incorporates
a
test
method
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
vapor
suppressants
for
facility­
specific
applications.
This
test
method
is
being
published
as
appendix
A
to
subpart
WWWW
of
40
CFR
part
63.
Comment:
One
commenter
states
that
the
proposed
rule
is
vague
or
silent
on
key
issues
including
continuous
monitoring
of
the
preconcentrator
control
performance.
The
commenter
states
that
the
question
of
the
practical
long­
term
efficiency
of
the
preconcentrator
system
is
particularly
disturbing
because
the
proposed
rule
is
silent
on
the
issue
of
compliance
assurance.
Unfortunately,
compliance
assurance
will
present
three
problems:
no
available
parametric
measure
will
work
to
monitor
absorber
efficiency;
continuous
or
semi­
continuous
flame
ionization
detectors
(
FID)
are
the
only
practical
alternative,
but
are
unreliable;
and
automated
FID
equipment
is
very
expensive
and
prone
to
periods
of
malfunction.
The
commenter
also
states
that
the
only
feasible
available
continuous
emissions
monitor
(
CEM)
system
that
can
measure
styrene
is
an
automated
sampling
device
based
on
an
equivalent
FID
sensor
as
described
in
EPA
Method
25A
of
appendix
A
 
7
to
40
CFR
part
60
that
has
an
annual
cost
of
$
78,200
per
year.
The
additional
cost
of
this
necessary
compliance
monitoring
equipment
was
not
included
in
the
EPA
cost
analysis.
Response:
We
have
reviewed
the
information
on
those
facilities
using
add­
on
control
devices
with
carbon
adsorbers
within
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
industry
and
have
found
none
that
are
using
FID.
These
facilities
are
able
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
95
percent
reduction.
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
to
require
use
of
FID
under
the
final
rule
and
have
not
included
the
cost
of
such
devices
in
our
cost
analysis.
Comment:
One
commenter
notes
that
the
requirements
for
sources
to
determine
the
HAP
content
should
be
the
same
as
those
in
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV).
The
commenter
points
out
that
the
boat
rule
allows
sources
to
use
information
from
the
supplier
or
manufacturer
and
requires
the
use
of
the
upper
limit
of
a
range
if
a
range
is
provided
and
allows
use
of
supplier
information
as
long
as
a
measured
value
does
not
exceed
the
provided
value
by
more
than
2
percentage
points.
The
commenter
notes
that
suppliers
provide
many
of
the
same
resins
and
gel
coats
to
boat
manufacturers
and
composites
manufacturers.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
and
the
final
rule
has
been
written
in
line
with
the
HAP
content
determination
provisions
found
in
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP,
which
in
part
allow
up
to
a
plus
or
minus
2
percent
allowance.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
rule
should
allow
composites
manufacturers
to
change
compliance
options
and
should
provide
guidance
on
notification
and
record
keeping
requirements
if
affected
sources
need
to
switch
compliance
options.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
and
have
included
language
in
the
final
rule
making
it
clear
that
changes
in
the
selected
compliance
option
are
allowed.
Comment:
One
commenter
opposed
capture
and
control
for
pultrusion
sources
based
on
worker
safety.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
EPA
analysis
assumes
an
inlet
concentration
of
100
ppmv,
but
their
measured
concentrations
are
about
12
ppmv.
At
that
concentration,
according
to
the
commenter,
capture
and
control
is
not
viable.
The
commenter
claims
that
efforts
to
increase
the
inlet
concentration
lead
to
OSHA
and
industrial
hygiene
concerns
and
that
any
changes
increasing
the
concentration
to
over
20
ppmv
would
exceed
American
Congress
of
Governmental
Industrial
Hygienists
recommended
maximums.
Further,
the
commenter
states
that
levels
approaching
50
ppmv
require
installation
of
engineering
controls
(
ventilation
or
HAP
prevention)
and
exposure
to
these
levels
would
meet
with
serious
union
objections.
The
commenter
notes
that
these
considerations
result
in
higher
capture
and
control
costs.
The
commenter
requests
that
health
related
issues
be
fully
addressed
before
the
proposed
above­
the­
floor
capture
and
control
is
implemented.
Another
commenter
stated
that
pultrusion
products
requiring
constant
attention
would
have
to
have
an
enclosure
large
enough
for
the
operator
to
be
inside,
and
this
would
increase
health
risks
due
to
styrene
exposures.
Response:
As
noted
in
previous
responses,
the
above­
the­
floor
requirement
for
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
is
no
longer
required
for
pultrusion
operations
at
existing
sources
and,
therefore,
capture
and
control
is
no
longer
an
issue
for
existing
facilities.
We
also
note
that
our
revised
cost
analysis
now
uses
a
target
maximum
inlet
concentration
of
50
ppmv
rather
than
100
ppmv.
The
50
ppmv
target
is
the
same
as
the
current
OSHA
8­
hour
time
weighted
average
limit
for
styrene.
We
have
not
changed
our
position
on
capture
and
control
for
new
sources,
except,
as
discussed
above,
with
respect
to
large
parts
made
by
pultrusion
(
and
open
molding)
sources.
New
facilities
can
be
designed
with
the
appropriate
measures
in
place
to
avoid
worker
exposure
in
excess
of
OSHA
requirements.
As
previously
discussed,
facilities
that
have
incorporated
capture
and
control
meet
current
OSHA
requirements
for
worker
safety.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
preform
injection,
a
technique
that
applies
resin
to
the
reinforcements
in
a
closed
box,
be
an
allowed
control
technology
because
it
is
a
more
viable
and
readily
attainable
control
technology
than
either
add­
on
control
or
direct­
die
injection.
One
commenter
stated
that
preform
injection
should
qualify
for
a
90
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction,
and
the
CFA
proposed
definition
and
requirements
should
be
used
as
the
criteria
for
preform
injection.
A
second
commenter
stated
that
although
it
falls
short
of
95
percent
reduction,
reduction
rates
of
90
percent
are
attainable
and
an
excellent
trade
off
given
the
applicability,
capital
requirements,
and
operating
costs
associated
with
preform
injection.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
preform
injection
is
a
viable
control
technology
for
reducing
HAP
emissions
from
pultrusion
operations.
Preform
injection
is
included
in
the
final
rule
as
an
option
for
meeting
the
60
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement
for
existing
pultrusion
sources.
However,
as
stated
by
the
commenters,
preform
injection
(
and
direct
die
injection)
do
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00073
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19394
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
not
meet
the
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement,
which
is
the
new
source
MACT
floor.
The
CAA
does
not
allow
us
to
be
less
stringent
than
the
floor.
Therefore,
we
cannot
allow
preform
injection,
or
direct
die
injection,
to
be
a
compliance
option
to
meet
the
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement.
We
also
included
a
definition
for
preform
injection
in
the
final
rule
that
is
based
on
the
commenter's
suggested
language.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
a
12­
month
averaging
period
for
compliance
for
pultrusion.
The
commenters
stated
that
pultruders
should
be
able
to
use
a
combination
of
preform
injection,
wet
area
enclosures,
direct
die
injection,
and
``
no
control''
to
meet
the
60
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement
for
existing
sources.
The
commenters
pointed
out
that
HAP
emissions
credits
could
be
earned
to
offset
the
processing
of
products
with
an
open
bath
and
``
no
control.''
According
to
the
commenters,
without
averaging,
facilities
will
be
forced
to
discontinue
manufacturing
products
that
require
constant
open
access
(
for
example,
certain
complex
profiles)
or
to
shut
down
any
processing
line
when
there
is
an
extended
period
of
processing
adjustments
(
which
require
open
access
to
the
line).
Response:
We
agree
that
averaging
will
add
some
flexibility
for
you
to
comply
with
the
final
rule
without
increasing
HAP
emissions.
Therefore,
for
existing
sources
we
have
included
an
averaging
option.
For
purposes
of
averaging,
we
have
assigned
wet
area
enclosures
a
60
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction,
and
direct
die
injection
and
preform
injection
a
90
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
the
60
percent
emission
reduction
requirement
for
existing
sources,
which
is
based
in
the
use
of
a
wet
area
enclosure,
be
replaced
with
a
work
practice
standard
of
air
flow
management.
They
stated
it
was
impossible
to
apply
wet
area
enclosures
to
these
large
parts
because
of
accessibility
concerns.
Large
parts
require
almost
constant
access
because
they
are
extremely
complex.
The
other
control
options
for
existing
sources,
preform
injection
and
direct
die
injection,
have
also
not
been
demonstrated
on
these
large
parts.
They
suggested
a
definition
for
large
parts,
which
was
parts
with
1,000
or
more
reinforcements
and
at
least
a
60
square
inch
cross
sectional
area.
Response:
We
agree
that
wet
area
enclosures,
which
form
the
basis
of
the
existing
source
floor,
are
not
feasible
for
large
parts
as
defined
in
the
comment.
Therefore,
we
developed
a
separate
existing
source
MACT
floor
for
large
pultruded
parts.
A
review
of
the
available
data
indicates
air
flow
management
(
as
described
in
more
detail
in
Table
4
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63)
has
been
used
to
control
emissions
from
this
process
group.
Therefore,
the
existing
source
MACT
floor
is
air
flow
management.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
reflect
the
new
floor.
Comment:
Many
commenters
requested
that
the
limit
on
wet
enclosure
open
times
of
30
minutes
per
shift
be
changed
to
90
minutes
per
day
to
allow
for
necessary
repairs,
start­
ups,
and
shutdowns.
Response:
We
evaluated
the
commenters'
request.
The
facilities
that
actually
set
the
floor
for
pultrusion
are
limited
to
30
minutes
per
8
hour
shift
or
45
minutes
per
12
hour
shift.
In
addition,
the
facility
may
average
over
all
pultrusion
lines.
We
have
included
averaging
provisions
across
lines
in
the
final
rule.
We
have
also
allowed
a
facility
to
have
the
doors
and
covers
open
90
minutes
per
day
providing
the
machine
is
operated
three
8­
hour
shifts
or
two
12­
hour
shifts.
Comment:
Three
commenters
claimed
that
the
height
restriction
on
wet
area
enclosures
is
not
practical
because
it
does
not
allow
room
above
the
highest
part
to
make
adjustments
to
the
process
or
equipment.
According
to
the
commenters,
the
actual
height
of
the
wet
area
enclosure
has
no
impact
on
HAP
emissions
because
the
puller
window
is
the
controlling
factor,
and
styrene
emissions
will
remain
near
the
bath
without
air
flow.
The
commenters,
therefore,
requested
that
the
restriction
be
removed.
Response:
We
have
no
data
to
suggest
that
limiting
the
height
of
the
enclosure
affects
the
amount
of
HAP
emissions
reduction.
Therefore,
we
did
not
include
the
height
restrictions
on
the
wet
area
enclosures
in
the
final
rule.
Comment:
Commenters
requested
that
capture
and
control
not
be
required
for
sources
engaged
in
SMC
manufacturing.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
proposal
for
control
is
based
on
one
source
and,
according
to
the
commenter,
that
source
has
found
that
they
cannot
operate
the
SMC
operation
and
comply
with
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51.
A
second
commenter
stated
that
their
SMC
operation
is
permitted
by
Ohio
EPA
as
a
PTE
with
all
HAP
emissions
vented
to
a
thermal
oxidizer.
They
have
found
it
expensive
to
maintain
the
PTE
and
control
device
and
may
be
required
to
install
additional
monitors
at
great
expense.
Response:
For
existing
sources,
the
final
rule
does
not
require
capture
and
control
for
SMC
manufacturing.
For
new
sources,
however,
the
floor
is
95
percent
reduction
and
we
do
not
have
the
flexibility
to
change
the
floor.
Most
of
the
comments
raised
by
the
commenters
relate
to
the
cost
of
PTE
and
thermal
oxidizers.
However,
costs
may
not
be
considered
in
setting
the
floor.
Additionally,
the
problems
with
compliance
noted
by
one
commenter
do
not,
in
themselves,
indicate
that
new
sources
cannot
be
designed
and
operated
to
meet
the
95
percent
control
requirement.
For
example,
the
facility
states
that
they
must
open
a
large
overhead
door
to
operate
their
second
SMC
machine.
In
a
new
facility,
the
plant
layout
can
be
designed
where
large
doors
are
not
required
to
be
continually
open.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
retains
the
requirement
of
95
percent
capture
and
control
for
SMC
manufacturing
at
new
sources
that
exceed
the
100
tpy
of
HAP
emissions
threshold.
Comment:
One
commenter
noted
that
an
alternative
to
meeting
the
95
percent
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirement
is
provided
for
some
operations
and
requests
that
an
alternate
HAP
emissions
limit
be
provided
for
SMC
manufacturing.
An
alternative
HAP
emissions
limit
allows
SMC
manufacturers
to
utilize
pollutionprevention
efforts
that
have
already
been
implemented
and
encourages
the
use
of
future
pollution­
prevention
efforts.
Response:
For
SMC
manufacturing,
we
have
incorporated
a
HAP
emissions
limit
of
2.4
lb/
ton
as
a
compliance
alternative
to
the
95
percent
control
requirement
in
the
final
rule.
Comment:
A
number
of
commenters
expressed
concerns
about
the
floor
level
of
control
for
SMC
manufacturing
that
is
based
on
several
work
practices.
They
stated
that
the
requirement
to
cover
doctor
boxes
should
be
deleted
because
the
boxes
have
to
be
open
for
machine
operators
to
monitor
paste
levels.
They
also
mentioned
that
folding
the
edges
of
the
SMC
had
proved
to
create
problems
for
some
facilities
that
had
tried
the
practice.
Finally,
they
stated
that
the
requirement
to
enclose
the
SMC
in
nylon
film
should
actually
say
nyloncontaining
film.
Response:
We
evaluated
the
basis
for
the
MACT
floor
by
reviewing
all
of
the
data
available
prior
to
proposal
and
contained
in
the
public
comment
letters.
On
the
basis
of
this
review,
we
discovered
that
the
MACT
floor
at
proposal
did
not
accurately
reflect
the
actual
work
practices
currently
being
used.
Therefore,
we
changed
the
floor
to
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00074
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19395
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
for
both
new
and
existing
sources
to
cover
or
enclose
the
resin
transport
system
up
to
the
doctor
box
and
use
nylon­
containing
film
to
enclose
the
SMC.
Based
on
the
practices
at
the
best
controlled
similar
source,
these
work
practices
also
apply
to
new
sources
that
are
above
the
100
tpy
threshold.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
the
requirement
for
``
no
visible
gaps
in
mixer
covers''
be
revised
to
allow
reasonable
and
necessary
openings.
In
general,
they
stated
that
mixing
vessels
must
have
some
opening
or
vents
to
allow
air
to
enter
or
leave
the
vessel
when
materials
are
added
or
removed,
or
when
the
contained
material
expands
or
contracts
due
to
changes
in
temperature.
Commenters
also
noted
necessary
clearance
for
mixing
shafts
and
other
instrumentation
are
essential
and
suggested
allowing
a
gap
of
one
inch.
An
additional
commenter
stated
that
they
have
several
holding
tanks
that
are
continuously
agitated
to
prevent
settling.
They
requested
that
we
add
clarifying
language
to
the
definition
of
mixers
to
exclude
tanks
that
are
only
agitated
to
prevent
settling.
Response:
Based
on
our
review
of
the
available
data
on
the
current
industry
control
on
mixing
tanks,
we
found
that
the
proposed
rule
is
more
stringent
than
the
floor
and
that
to
allow
some
visible
gaps
around
shafts,
etc.,
is
consistent
with
the
data
available
to
set
the
floor.
Therefore,
we
have
written
the
final
rule
to
allow
no
more
than
one
inch
of
visible
gap
around
mixing
shafts
and
any
required
instrumentation.
With
regard
to
the
request
to
exempt
tanks
that
are
agitated
only
to
prevent
settling,
concern
was
that
the
mixing
shafts
required
clearance.
Because
we
have
added
a
provision
to
allow
up
to
a
one
inch
clearance
around
the
agitator
shafts,
this
concern
has
been
addressed
and
the
suggested
exemption
for
these
specific
types
of
mixers
is
not
warranted.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
does
not
include
an
exemption
for
tanks
that
agitate
only
to
prevent
settling.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
the
rule
allow
active
venting
under
three
conditions:
when
adding
filler;
when
using
nitrogen
blanketing;
and
prior
to
opening
a
mixer.
Several
commenters
stated
that
when
powders
are
added
to
mixing
tanks,
vent
gases
are
directed
to
a
dust
collector
to
protect
employees.
One
commenter
stated
that
you
cannot
capture
dust
without
actively
venting.
The
commenter
suggests
that
the
proposed
rule
allow
active
venting
as
part
of
the
material
addition
process.
Two
commenters
actively
vent
covered
mixers
at
very
low
flow
through
a
dust
collector.
The
active
flow
results
from
nitrogen
flowing
through
the
air
space
for
safety
reasons
(
to
prevent
vapor
buildup).
Based
on
stack
test
results,
HAP
emissions
under
these
conditions
were
found
to
be
very
low
(
0.000292
lb
styrene/
lb
styrene
available).
For
these
reasons,
active
venting
for
safety
reasons,
using
an
inert
gas
purge,
and
at
low
flow,
should
be
allowed
for
covered
mixers.
Another
commenter
stated
that
some
mixing
operations
use
nitrogen
blanketing
for
safety
(
to
prevent
formation
of
flammable
atmospheres).
These
sources
have
an
incentive
to
limit
use
of
nitrogen
blanketing
because
of
cost;
so,
HAP
emissions
will
be
negligible.
Two
commenters
also
requested
that
the
rule
allow
venting
just
before
adding
materials
to
clear
out
vapors
prior
to
opening
covers
and
to
allow
venting
just
after
adding
powders
to
capture
residual
dust
in
the
vapor
space.
One
commenter
also
asked
that
the
term
``
active
venting''
be
defined
in
the
rule.
Response:
We
believe
that
most
HAP
emissions
that
result
from
mixing
operations
occur
when
active
mixing
is
taking
place.
Also,
based
on
the
data
used
to
set
the
MACT
floor,
the
facilities
that
responded
that
mixers
have
no
active
venting
meant
that
the
mixer
was
covered
and
not
vented
during
mixing.
As
a
result,
we
have
written
the
rule
requirement
to
read
``
close
any
mixer
vents
when
actual
mixing
is
occurring,
except
that
venting
is
allowed
during
addition
of
materials,
or
as
necessary
prior
to
adding
materials
or
opening
the
cover
for
safety.''
Because
we
have
removed
the
term
``
active
venting,''
no
definition
of
this
term
is
required.
Comment:
One
commenter
believes
that
covers
should
be
required
instead
of
add­
on
control
for
larger
mixing
operations.
According
to
the
commenter,
covers
can
reduce
HAP
emissions
by
84.8
percent
to
96
percent.
The
commenter
then
maintains
that
the
incremental
HAP
emissions
reduction
from
oxidation
cannot
justify
the
cost
and
energy
use
of
control
when
compared
to
covers.
The
commenter
notes
that
there
are
some
facilities
in
EPA's
database
that
use
add­
on
controls
for
mixing.
However,
according
to
the
commenter,
the
control
in
all
cases
is
incidental
to
the
use
of
the
add­
on
control
for
other
operations
in
the
facility.
Therefore,
the
commenter
believes
that
add­
on
control
is
not
the
best
control
for
mixing,
and
the
final
rule
should
require
covers
instead
of
add­
on
controls
for
all
mixing
operations.
Response:
The
reasons
for
why
HAP
emissions
are
being
controlled
is
usually
not
considered
in
the
setting
of
MACT
standards.
Further,
we
disagree
with
the
commenter's
characterization
of
the
control
of
mixing
HAP
emissions
as
``
incidental.''
We
do
not
agree
that
the
data
provided
support
the
claim
of
85
to
96
percent
control
using
covers.
Therefore,
we
have
not
written
the
rule
as
requested
by
the
commenter.
New
sources
that
exceed
the
100
tpy
HAP
emissions
threshold
will
still
have
to
cover
the
mixing
tanks
and
control
their
HAP
emissions
from
mixing
by
95
percent,
which
is
the
new
source
floor
level
of
control.
Comment:
Two
commenters
suggested
that
the
definition
of
compression
molding
be
changed
to
include
a
process
where
resin
paste
is
added
to
the
reinforcement
at
the
press
and
to
include
the
use
of
in­
mold
coating
(
IMC).
According
to
the
commenters,
the
resin
paste
process
is
similar
to
the
use
of
SMC
and
BMC
because
there
is
no
exposure
of
HAP­
containing
material,
except
where
the
charge
is
being
prepared
and
placed
in
the
mold.
The
controls
for
this
process
are
the
same
as
those
available
for
SMC
and
BMC
(
i.
e.
limiting
the
quantity
of
exposed
materials
to
that
which
is
required
for
one
press
cycle).
In­
mold
coating
is
a
process
where
HAPcontaining
materials
are
mixed
with
catalyst
and
then
injected
into
the
mold
cavity
after
the
molding
cycle
has
started.
The
IMC
reduces
the
need
for
post­
mold
coating
(
painting)
operations.
The
controls
available
for
IMC
are
the
same
as
those
generally
available
for
mixing
operations.
Response:
We
have
modified
the
definition
of
closed
molding
to
include
these
processes.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
the
work
practice
standard
requiring
closed
molding
operations
to
uncover,
unwrap,
or
expose
only
one
charge
per
mold
cycle
per
machine
be
revised
so
that
a
charge
is
defined
as
the
amount
of
materials
required
to
charge
the
mold(
s)
for
each
machine
cycle.
Some
machines
have
more
than
one
mold,
and
limiting
the
amount
of
material
would
cause
a
bottleneck
in
production
capacity.
One
commenter
added
that
the
rule
should
allow
multiple
charges
to
be
loaded
into
the
hopper,
provided
the
hopper
is
kept
covered
between
loading
operations
and
that
the
unlimited
use
of
slitting
machines
to
unwrap,
cut,
and
prepare
charges
should
be
permitted,
provided
that
the
charges
are
then
covered
or
placed
in
a
closed
container
prior
to
use
at
the
press.
Response:
We
agree
that
where
multiple
charges
are
required
for
a
single
mold
cycle,
the
rule
should
allow
them
to
be
prepared
at
the
same
time
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00075
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19396
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
held
in
a
closed
container
prior
to
use.
Therefore,
we
have
written
the
final
rule
to
define
``
charge''
per
the
commenter's
suggestion
and
to
require
that
multiple
charges
be
kept
covered,
as
for
single
charges,
until
used.
We
have
also
written
the
final
rule
to
allow
the
use
of
hoppers,
robotic
loaders,
and
slitters.
Comment:
Many
commenters
noted
in
the
proposed
rule
that
polymer
casting
mixing
operations
in
containers
of
21
gallons
or
less
may
be
open
while
active
mixing
occurs
and
requested
that
this
exemption
be
increased.
The
commenters
note
that
many
are
using
350
lb
containers,
which
is
equivalent
to
21.6
gallons.
According
to
the
commenters,
the
mixing
process
uses
an
electric
mixer
and
requires
frequent
manual
scraping
of
the
sides,
and
a
requirement
to
cover
the
mixer
would
present
a
productivity
disadvantage.
Response:
Changing
the
volume
exemption
from
21
to
21.6
gallons
would
be
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
proposed
exemption.
The
surface
area
of
exempt
mixers
is
a
more
important
parameter
because
it
is
directly
related
to
the
amount
of
HAP
emissions
that
would
occur.
Therefore,
we
have
included
this
exemption
in
the
final
rule
but
have
changed
the
exemption
parameter
to
500
square
inches
of
surface
area.
This
change
should
allow
the
21.6
gallon
mixers,
commonly
used
in
this
industry,
to
be
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
cover
the
mixer.
Comment:
One
commenter
noted
that
worker
safety,
fire
prevention,
and
product
quality
requirements
necessitate
limited
active
venting
of
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
vessels,
covered
mixers,
and
material
conveyance
enclosures.
Some
facilities
store
resins
in
bulk
tanks
with
passive
atmospheric
venting.
Problems
arise
from
resin
contact
with
the
water
vapor
in
the
atmosphere.
Polymerization
occurs
on
side
walls,
vents,
and
transfer
pipes.
Vents,
especially
conservation
vents,
can
plug,
threatening
the
tank's
structural
integrity.
Nitrogen
blanketing
is
used
by
some
facilities
to
solve
these
problems.
Nitrogen
blanketing
is
also
used
to
inert
the
head
space
in
bulk
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
tanks
for
fire
prevention.
Another
commenter
requested
clarifying
language
to
allow
passive
vents
for
bulk
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
tanks.
The
vents
are
small
to
allow
for
breathing
of
the
tanks
as
they
are
filled
and
emptied.
These
vents
are
required
under
OSHA
to
prevent
pressure
build­
up
and
to
reduce
the
chances
of
explosions
and
major
leaks
or
spills.
The
annual
breathing
losses
from
all
eight
of
this
commenter's
tanks
are
less
than
1
tpy.
A
third
commenter
suggested
that
the
rule
be
changed
to
allow
venting
from
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
vessels.
Response:
We
did
not
intend
to
prohibit
bulk
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
tanks
from
venting
to
the
atmosphere
for
safety.
The
final
rule
has
been
written
to
clarify
this.
However,
it
is
not
our
intent
to
allow
venting
from
all
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
vessels
because
the
safety
concerns
commenters
raised
are
limited
to
bulk
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
vessels.
Thus,
the
final
rule
prohibits
venting
from
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
vessels
other
than
bulk
storage
tanks.
Comment:
One
commenter
noted
that
the
proposed
rule
would
require
that
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
containers
be
kept
closed
or
covered,
except
when
adding
or
removing
materials.
The
commenter
claims
this
provision
is
not
workable.
Response:
We
believe
that
covering
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
containers
is
a
simple
and
cost­
effective
way
to
reduce
styrene
evaporation.
We
also
note
that
over
200
facilities
that
reported
information
on
storage
stated
that
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
containers
are
covered
or
closed.
This
provision
has
been
written
in
the
final
rule.
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
HAP
cleaners
be
allowed
when
used
in
a
closed
system
or
covered
tank.
The
reasons
were
that
aggressive
cleaners
were
necessary
due
to
the
presence
of
cured
resin
on
some
surfaces,
and
that
it
was
important
to
use
a
cleaner
that
would
not
cause
contamination
problems.
They
stated
that
HAP
emissions
from
these
closed
systems
were
minimal,
and
in
many
cases,
the
styrene
used
for
cleaning
was
recycled
to
the
process
as
a
raw
material.
Response:
The
proposed
rule
allowed
the
use
of
HAP
cleaners
to
remove
cured
resin
from
application
equipment
because
of
the
difficulty
associated
with
removing
the
cured
resin.
One
commenter
in
particular
identified
other
equipment
used
in
the
process
on
which
cured
resin
may
occur.
We
note,
as
the
commenters
have,
that
styrene
is
the
main
HAP
used
in
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
industry
and
can
be
reused
in
the
process
without
contaminating
the
end
products.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
commenters'
requests
are
reasonable
and
have
written
the
final
rule
to
expand
the
definition
of
``
application
equipment''
and
to
allow
the
use
of
HAP­
containing
cleaners
in
closed
systems
(
including
covered
tanks).

VI.
Relationship
of
the
Final
NESHAP
to
Other
NESHAP
and
the
CAA
Operating
Permits
Program
A.
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Closed
Vent
Systems,
Control
Devices,
Recovery
Devices,
and
Routing
to
a
Fuel
Gas
System
or
a
Process
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
SS)

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

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

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

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

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

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00076
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19397
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
D.
Operating
Permit
Program
Under
the
operating
permit
program
codified
at
40
CFR
part
70
and
40
CFR
part
71,
all
major
sources
subject
to
standards
under
section
111
or
112
of
the
CAA
must
obtain
an
operating
permit
(
See
§
§
70.3(
a)(
1)
and
71.3(
a)(
1)).
Therefore,
all
major
sources
subject
to
the
final
NESHAP
must
obtain
an
operating
permit.
Some
reinforced
plastic
composites
production
facilities
may
be
major
sources
based
solely
on
their
potential
to
emit,
even
though
their
actual
HAP
emissions
are
below
the
major
source
level.
These
facilities
may
choose
to
obtain
a
federally
enforceable
limit
on
their
potential
to
emit
so
that
they
are
no
longer
considered
major
sources
subject
to
the
final
NESHAP.
Sources
that
opt
to
limit
their
potential
to
emit
(
e.
g.,
limits
on
operating
hours
or
amount
of
material
used)
are
referred
to
by
the
EPA
as
``
synthetic
area''
sources.
To
become
a
synthetic
area
source,
you
must
contact
your
local
permitting
authority
to
obtain
an
operating
permit
with
the
appropriate
operating
limits.
These
limits
must
be
obtained
prior
to
the
compliance
date
for
existing
sources,
which
is
April
21,
2006.
These
operating
limits
will
then
be
federally
enforceable
under
40
CFR
70.6(
b).

VII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
we
must
determine
whether
this
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
OMB
notified
EPA
at
proposal
that
it
considered
this
rulemaking
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
within
the
meaning
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
EPA
submitted
the
proposed
rule
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
suggestions
or
recommendations
from
OMB
are
documented
and
included
in
the
public
record.
The
OMB
has
informed
EPA
that
it
no
longer
considers
this
action
significant.
Therefore,
it
is
not
subject
to
further
OMB
review.
The
OMB
did
request
a
copy
of
the
final
regulation
and
preamble
prior
to
publication.
However,
they
did
not
request
any
changes
in
the
final
rule.

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

Affected
entity
Total
hours
Labor
costs
Total
annual
O&
M
costs
Total
costs
Industry
............................................................................................................
13,785
$
613,623
$
15,807
$
629,431
Implementing
agency
.......................................................................................
11,120
444,047
NA
444,047
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
Control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
When
the
OMB
approves
the
information
collection
requirements
of
the
final
rule,
the
EPA
will
amend
the
table
in
40
CFR
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
21
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00077
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19398
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
part
9
of
currently
approved
ICR
control
numbers
issued
by
OMB
for
various
regulations.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
The
EPA
has
prepared
a
Final
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
FRFA)
in
connection
with
the
final
rule.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
ranging
from
500
to
1,000
employees
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration's
size
standards;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
The
table
below
presents
the
size
threshold
for
small
businesses
by
NAICS
Codes.

Category
NAICS
codes
Maximum
number
of
employees
to
be
considered
a
small
business
Manufacturing
335312
1000
336211
336112
33612
336213
336413
33651
325211
750
327993
332998
33312
33651
335311
335313
33422
33653
336399
All
other
identified
NAICS
Codes
in
this
source
category
500
In
accordance
with
section
603
of
the
RFA,
EPA
prepared
an
initial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
(
IRFA)
for
the
proposed
rule
and
convened
a
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
to
obtain
advice
and
recommendations
of
representatives
of
the
regulated
small
entities
in
accordance
with
section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA
(
see
66
FR
40324).
A
detailed
discussion
of
the
Panel's
advice
and
recommendations
is
found
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2003
 
0003
(
formerly
Docket
No.
A
 
94
 
52).
A
summary
of
the
panel's
recommendations
is
presented
below.
We
have
also
prepared
a
FRFA
for
today's
rule.
The
FRFA
addresses
the
issues
raised
by
public
comments
on
the
IRFA.
The
FRFA
is
available
in
the
docket
and
is
summarized
below.
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and,
in
some
cases,
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
The
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
source
category
(
major
sources
only)
was
included
on
the
initial
list
of
source
categories
published
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Major
sources
of
HAP
are
those
that
have
the
potential
to
emit
greater
than
10
tpy
of
any
one
HAP
or
25
tpy
of
any
combination
of
HAP.
The
objective
of
the
final
rule
is
to
apply
standards
based
on
MACT
to
all
major
sources
in
this
source
category.
The
criteria
used
to
establish
MACT
are
contained
in
section
112(
d)
of
the
CAA.
We
received
several
comments
on
the
economic
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule.
However,
these
comments
related
to
the
general
analysis
methodology
and
were
mainly
focused
on
the
above­
the­
floor
requirements.
These
requirements
did
not
impact
any
small
businesses
in
our
analysis.
We
had
no
comments
specifically
in
the
IRFA.
Based
on
SBA
size
definitions
and
reported
sales
and
employment
data,
we
identified
279
of
the
357
companies
owning
reinforced
plastic
composites
facilities
as
small
businesses.
Although
small
businesses
represent
almost
80
percent
of
the
companies
within
the
source
category,
they
are
expected
to
incur
53
percent
of
the
total
industry
compliance
costs
of
$
21.5
million.
The
average
total
annual
compliance
cost
is
projected
to
be
$
40,000
per
small
company,
compared
to
the
industry
average
of
$
60,000
per
company.
Under
the
final
standards,
the
mean
annual
compliance
cost,
as
a
share
of
sales,
for
small
businesses
is
0.8
percent,
and
the
median
is
0.5
percent,
with
a
range
of
0.01
to
9.6
percent.
We
estimate
that
24
percent
of
small
businesses
(
or
67
firms)
may
experience
an
impact
greater
than
1
percent
of
sales,
and
5
percent
of
small
businesses
(
or
14
firms)
may
experience
an
impact
greater
than
3
percent
of
sales.
We
also
performed
an
economic
impact
analysis
(
EIA)
that
accounted
for
firm
behavior
to
provide
an
estimate
of
the
facility
and
market
impacts
of
the
final
rule.
This
industry
is
characterized
by
profit
margins
of
3
to
4
percent.
Small
businesses
were
found
to
have
higher
per­
unit
production
costs
under
baseline
conditions
and
incur
slightly
higher
per­
unit
compliance
costs.
As
a
result
of
these
factors,
the
economic
analysis
indicates
that
12
percent
of
facilities
owned
by
small
business
are
at
risk
of
closure
because
of
the
final
rule.
Note
that
this
number
is
slightly
higher
then
the
estimate
at
proposal,
which
was
10
percent.
This
change
is
not
due
to
any
change
in
stringency
of
the
rule
as
applied
to
small
businesses.
It
is
due
to
the
reduction
in
stringency
of
the
rule
for
large
businesses.
Although
any
facility
closures
are
cause
for
concern,
the
number
of
facilities
at
risk
for
closure
would
be
the
same
if
the
final
rule
required
only
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
for
all
facilities.
The
MACT
floor
is
the
least
stringent
level
allowed
by
statute.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00078
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19399
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
The
proposed
rule
contained
significant
accommodations
for
small
businesses
where
requirements
were
more
stringent
then
the
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources.
Since
these
above­
thefloor
requirements
for
existing
sources
have
been
eliminated
in
the
final
rule
for
all
process/
product
groupings
except
centrifugal
casting
and
continuous
lamination/
casting,
these
accommodations
for
small
business
are
no
longer
necessary.
Other
accommodations
originally
included
to
aid
small
businesses
were
extended
to
all
businesses
at
proposal
and
have
been
retained
in
the
final
NESHAP.
In
the
proposed
rule,
there
were
different
HAP
emissions
thresholds
above
which
an
existing
facility
had
to
comply
with
more
stringent
above­
thefloor
requirements
of
95
percent
capture
and
control.
This
threshold
was
250
tpy
of
HAP
emissions
for
small
businesses
and
100
tpy
for
large
businesses.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
removed
the
abovethe
floor
capture
and
control
requirements
for
existing
sources,
except
for
those
with
centrifugal
casting
or
continuous
lamination/
casting,
and
we
have
established
a
single
threshold
of
100
tpy
for
these
existing
sources,
whether
they
are
small
or
large
businesses.
Based
on
our
analysis,
setting
the
threshold
at
100
tpy
for
these
sources,
rather
than
retaining
the
proposed
100
tpy
for
large
businesses
and
250
tpy
for
small
businesses,
does
not
result
in
any
additional
impacts
on
small
businesses.
This
is
because
we
have
no
facilities
that
emit
over
100
tpy,
but
less
than
250
tpy,
of
HAP
from
centrifugal
casting
or
continuous
lamination/
casting
processes,
and
are
small
businesses.
The
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
these
small
businesses
include
initial
notifications,
startup
notifications
and
compliance
reports.
These
requirements
were
discussed
in
more
detail
under
the
discussion
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
above.
We
estimate
that
301
existing
facilities
owned
by
small
businesses
will
be
impacted
by
these
requirements,
and
53
new
facilities
owned
by
small
businesses
will
be
impacted
in
the
first
3
years.
The
professional
skills
required
to
complete
these
reports
include
the
ability
to
calculate
HAP
emissions
and
resin
use
and
read
and
follow
report
format
guidance.
All
facilities
impacted
by
the
final
rule
are
predicted
to
have
personnel
with
the
necessary
skills
because
they
would
need
these
skills
to
comply
with
other
regulatory
requirements,
such
as
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
reporting.
Provisions
to
minimize
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
on
small
business
have
been
incorporated
into
the
final
rule.
These
provisions
include
allowing
the
facility
to
substantiate
resin
and
gel
coat
HAP
contents
using
MSDS
rather
than
requiring
testing
of
each
resin
and
gel
coat;
use
of
resin
purchase
records
to
determine
resin
use;
and
exemption
of
facilities
that
can
demonstrate
that
all
their
resin
and
gel
coats
comply
with
the
required
HAP
content
limits
from
the
requirement
to
keep
records
of
resin
use
and
calculate
HAP
emissions
factor
averages.
These
provisions
have
also
been
extended
to
all
companies
subject
to
today's
final
NESHAP.
These
facilities
may
also
be
subject
to
the
NESHAP
being
developed
for
plastic
parts
and
products.
There
should
be
no
duplication
of
effort
as
a
result
of
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
NESHAP
and
the
Plastic
Parts
and
Products
NESHAP
being
developed
because
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
NESHAP
will
cover
different
operations.
Facilities
subject
to
the
final
rule
are
also
subject
to
HAP
emissions
estimate
reporting
under
the
TRI
requirements.
In
the
final
rule,
we
could
determine
no
ways
to
combine
TRI
and
the
reporting
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
because
the
objectives
and
statutory
authorities
of
these
requirements
are
different.
As
indicated
above,
we
have
incorporated
significant
alternatives
into
the
final
rule
to
minimize
the
impact
on
small
businesses
but
still
meet
the
objectives
of
the
CAA.
As
required
by
section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA,
EPA
conducted
outreach
to
small
entities
and
convened
a
SBAR
panel
to
review
advice
and
recommendations
from
representatives
of
the
small
entities
that
potentially
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
requirements.
Consistent
with
RFA/
SBREFA
requirements,
the
panel
evaluated
the
assembled
materials
and
small­
entity
comments
on
issues
related
to
the
elements
of
the
IRFA.
A
copy
of
the
panel
report
is
included
in
the
docket.
The
panel
considered
numerous
regulatory
flexibility
options
in
response
to
concerns
raised
by
the
small
entity
representatives.
The
major
concerns
included
the
affordability
and
technical
feasibility
of
add­
on
controls,
the
resin
and
gel
coat
HAP
contents
required
to
meet
some
of
the
MACT
floors,
and
the
regulatory
treatment
of
specialty
products.
These
are
the
major
panel
recommendations
and
EPA's
response
in
today's
final
rule:
 
Recommend
setting
higher
thresholds
for
small
businesses
than
EPA
had
initially
considered
for
requirements
to
use
add­
on
controls.
Response:
In
today's
action,
EPA
has
removed
the
requirements
for
add­
on
controls
for
open
molding,
pultrusion,
SMC
and
BMC
manufacturing,
and
mixing
operations
at
existing
sources.
We
are
retaining
this
above­
the­
floor
requirement
for
centrifugal
casting
and
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations
at
existing
sources
and
setting
a
single
threshold
of
100
tpy
applicable
to
both
small
and
large
businesses.
Setting
a
common
threshold
at
100
tpy
does
not
increase
the
impacts
on
any
small
business
because
we
identified
no
small­
business
owned
sources
that
are
impacted
as
the
result
of
the
decision
to
set
a
single
threshold.
Also,
the
original
reason
for
setting
different
existing
source
thresholds
for
small
versus
large
businesses
were
the
impacts
of
the
capital
cost
of
add­
on
controls
for
open
molding,
pultrusion,
SMC
and
BMC
manufacturing,
and
mixing.
Because
existing
sources
that
have
these
operations
are
no
longer
subject
to
any
above­
the­
floor
add­
on
control
requirements,
the
original
reason
for
having
the
different
thresholds
no
longer
exists.
The
following
recommendations
were
developed
for
small
businesses,
but
were
extended
to
both
large
and
small
business
in
the
proposed
rule
and
in
the
final
rule.
 
Recommend
setting
the
new
source
floor
for
small­
owned
sources
at
the
level
of
the
existing
source
floor.
Response:
Today's
final
rule
includes
this
provision.
 
Recommend
establishing
separate
floors
for
specialty
products.
Response:
Today's
final
rule
includes
provisions
for
special
products.
 
Explore
pollution­
prevention
alternatives
to
add­
on
controls.
Response:
The
EPA
did
explore
this
possibility
with
industry
sources.
We
could
not
devise
a
workable
pollutionprevention
alternative
to
include
in
the
proposed
rule
and
requested
comment.
The
only
comments
received
on
a
pollution­
prevention
alternative
were
for
the
pultrusion
process/
product
grouping.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
incorporated
a
new
pollutionprevention
technology
recommended
in
the
comments
as
a
compliance
alternative
for
pultrusion
operations.
 
Recommend
allowing
individual
facilities
to
use
the
same
resin
in
all
resin
application
processes.
Response:
Today's
final
rule
includes
this
provision.
 
Reconsider
the
resin
HAP
content
requirement
for
tooling
resins.
Response:
We
requested
additional
information
on
tooling
resins
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00079
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19400
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
subsequent
to
proposal.
Based
on
information
we
received,
the
floor
for
manual
application
of
tooling
resins
was
made
less
stringent.
The
available
data
still
indicate
that
the
floor
for
mechanical
tooling
resins
in
the
proposed
rule
was
appropriate.
 
Recommend
separate
floors
for
white/
off­
white
gel
coats
and
other
pigmented
gel
coats.
Response:
Today's
final
rule
includes
this
provision.
 
Reconsider
the
Agency's
estimates
of
the
cost
of
add­
on
controls.
Response:
We
conducted
a
thorough
review
of
our
costs
for
add­
on
controls
and
made
significant
revisions
to
the
cost
estimates.
As
a
result,
the
add­
on
control
requirements
have
been
removed
for
open
molding,
pultrusion,
SMC
and
BMC
manufacturing
and
mixing
operations
at
existing
sources.
 
Recommend
grouping
high­
strength
applications
with
corrosion­
resistant
operations.
Response:
Today's
final
rule
includes
this
provision.
As
contemplated
by
Section
212
of
SBREFA,
EPA
is
also
preparing
a
small
entity
compliance
guide
to
help
small
entities
comply
with
this
rule.
This
guide
will
be
made
available
on
EPA's
air
toxics
website,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
by
April
21,
2004.

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

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

F.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
The
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
because
we
are
not
aware
of
any
Indian
tribal
governments
or
communities
affected
by
the
final
rule.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
final
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00080
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19401
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
The
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
based
on
technology
performance
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.

H.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001),
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
We
determined
that
the
overall
energy
demand
for
operations
in
the
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
source
category
could
increase
by
10
million
standard
cubic
feet
per
year
of
natural
gas,
and
0.6
million
kilowatt
hours
of
electricity
per
year
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule.
These
are
not
significant
adverse
effects
under
the
Executive
Order.

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

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
SBREFA,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
The
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
the
final
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00081
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19402
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
The
final
rule
will
be
effective
on
April
21,
2003.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
air
pollutants,
Incorporation
by
reference,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
Volatile
organic
compounds.

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

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

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]


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
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
b)(
29)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.14
Incorporations
by
reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tables
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
Table
1
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Equations
to
Calculate
Organic
HAP
Emissions
Factors
for
Specific
Open
Molding
and
Centrifugal
Casting
Process
Streams
Table
2
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Compliance
Dates
for
New
and
Existing
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Facilities
Table
3
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Organic
HAP
Emissions
Limits
for
Existing
Open
Molding
Sources,
New
Open
Molding
Sources
Emitting
Less
Than
100
TPY
of
HAP,
and
New
and
Existing
Centrifugal
Casting
and
Continuous
Lamination/
Casting
Sources
That
Emit
Less
Than
100
TPY
of
HAP
Table
4
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Work
Practice
Standards
Table
5
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Alternative
Organic
HAPEmissions
Limits
for
Open
Molding,
Centrifugal
Casting,
and
SMC
Manufacturing
Operations
Where
the
Standard
is
Based
on
a
95
Percent
Reduction
Requirement
Table
6
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Basic
Requirements
for
Performance
Tests,
Performance
Evaluations,
and
Design
Evaluations
for
New
and
Existing
Sources
Using
Add­
On
Control
Devices
Table
7
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Options
Allowing
Use
of
the
Same
Resin
Across
Different
Operations
That
Use
the
Same
Resin
Type
Table
8
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Initial
Compliance
With
Organic
HAP
Emissions
Limits
Table
9
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Initial
Compliance
With
Work
Practice
Standards.
Table
10
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Data
Requirements
for
New
and
Existing
Continuous
Lamination
Lines
and
Continuous
Casting
Lines
Complying
with
a
Percent
Reduction
Limit
on
a
Per
Line
Basis
Table
11
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Data
Requirements
for
New
and
Existing
Continuous
Lamination
and
Continuous
Casting
Lines
Complying
with
a
Percent
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00082
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19403
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Reduction
Limit
or
a
Lbs/
Ton
Limit
on
an
Averaging
Basis
Table
12
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Data
Requirements
for
New
and
Existing
Continuous
Lamination
Lines
and
Continuous
Casting
Lines
Complying
with
a
Lbs/
Ton
Organic
HAP
Emissions
Limit
on
a
Per
Line
Basis
Table
13
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
and
Timing
of
Notifications
Table
14
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Requirements
for
Reports
Table
15
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
(
Subpart
A)
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
Appendix
A
to
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
 
Test
Method
for
Determining
Vapor
Suppressant
Effectiveness
What
This
Subpart
Covers
§
63.5780
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
This
subpart
establishes
national
emissions
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
reinforced
plastic
composites
production.
This
subpart
also
establishes
requirements
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
the
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
emissions
standards.

§
63.5785
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
(
a)
You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
reinforced
plastic
composites
production
facility
that
is
located
at
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions.
Reinforced
plastic
composites
production
is
limited
to
operations
in
which
reinforced
and/
or
nonreinforced
plastic
composites
or
plastic
molding
compounds
are
manufactured
using
thermoset
resins
and/
or
gel
coats
that
contain
styrene
to
produce
plastic
composites.
The
resins
and
gel
coats
may
also
contain
materials
designed
to
enhance
the
chemical,
physical,
and/
or
thermal
properties
of
the
product.
Reinforced
plastic
composites
production
also
includes
cleaning,
mixing,
HAP­
containing
materials
storage,
and
repair
operations
associated
with
the
production
of
plastic
composites.
(
b)
You
are
not
subject
to
this
subpart
if
your
facility
only
repairs
reinforced
plastic
composites.
Repair
includes
the
non­
routine
manufacture
of
individual
components
or
parts
intended
to
repair
a
larger
item
as
defined
in
§
63.5935
(
c)
You
are
not
subject
to
this
subpart
if
your
facility
is
a
research
and
development
facility
as
defined
in
section
112(
c)(
7)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
(
d)
You
are
not
subject
to
this
subpart
if
your
reinforced
plastic
composites
operations
use
less
than
1.2
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
of
thermoset
resins
and
gel
coats
that
contain
styrene
combined.
§
63.5787
What
if
I
also
manufacture
fiberglass
boats
or
boat
parts?
(
a)
If
your
source
meets
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.5785,
and
is
not
subject
to
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV),
you
are
subject
to
this
subpart
regardless
of
the
final
use
of
the
parts
you
manufacture.
(
b)
If
your
source
is
subject
to
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV,
and
all
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
you
manufacture
are
used
in
manufacturing
your
boats,
you
are
not
subject
to
this
subpart.
(
c)
If
you
are
subject
to
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV,
and
meet
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.5785,
and
produce
reinforced
plastic
composites
that
are
not
used
in
fiberglass
boat
manufacture
at
your
facility,
all
operations
associated
with
the
manufacture
of
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
parts
that
are
not
used
in
fiberglass
boat
manufacture
at
your
facility
are
subject
to
this
subpart,
except
as
noted
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
d)
Facilities
potentially
subject
to
both
this
subpart
and
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV
may
elect
to
have
the
operations
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV,
in
lieu
of
this
subpart,
if
they
can
demonstrate
that
this
will
not
result
in
any
organic
HAP
emissions
increase
compared
to
complying
with
this
subpart.

§
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,
HAPcontaining
materials
storage,
and
repair
operations
on
parts
you
also
manufacture.
(
c)
The
following
operations
are
specifically
excluded
from
any
requirements
in
this
subpart:
Application
of
mold
sealing
and
release
agents,
mold
stripping
and
cleaning,
repair
of
parts
that
you
did
not
manufacture,
including
non­
routine
manufacturing
of
parts,
personal
activities
that
are
not
part
of
the
manufacturing
operations
(
such
as
hobby
shops
on
military
bases),
prepreg
materials
as
defined
in
§
63.5935,
nongel
coat
surface
coatings,
repair
or
production
materials
that
do
not
contain
resin
or
gel
coat,
and
research
and
development
operations
as
defined
in
section
112(
c)(
7)
of
the
CAA.
(
d)
Production
resins
that
must
meet
military
specifications
are
allowed
to
meet
the
organic
HAP
limit
contained
in
that
specification.
In
order
for
this
exemption
to
be
used,
you
must
supply
to
the
permitting
authority
the
specifications
certified
as
accurate
by
the
military
procurement
officer,
and
those
specifications
must
state
a
requirement
for
a
specific
resin,
or
a
specific
resin
HAP
content.
Production
resins
for
which
this
exemption
is
used
must
be
applied
with
nonatomizing
resin
application
equipment
unless
you
can
demonstrate
this
is
infeasible.
You
must
keep
a
record
of
the
resins
for
which
you
are
using
this
exemption.

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

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

Calculating
Organic
HAP
Emissions
Factors
for
Open
Molding
and
Centrifugal
Casting
§
63.5796
What
are
the
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
and
how
are
they
used
in
this
subpart?

Emissions
factors
are
used
in
this
subpart
to
determine
compliance
with
certain
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Tables
3
and
5
to
this
subpart.
You
may
use
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
to
calculate
your
emissions
factors.
Equations
are
available
for
each
open
molding
operation
and
centrifugal
casting
operation
and
have
units
of
pounds
of
organic
HAP
emitted
per
ton
(
lb/
ton)
of
resin
or
gel
coat
applied.
These
equations
are
intended
to
provide
a
method
for
you
to
demonstrate
compliance
without
the
need
to
conduct
for
a
HAP
emissions
test.
In
lieu
of
these
equations,
you
can
elect
to
use
sitespecific
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
to
demonstrate
compliance
provided
your
site­
specific
organic
HAP
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00083
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19404
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
emissions
factors
are
incorporated
in
the
facility's
air
emissions
permit
and
are
based
on
actual
facility
HAP
emissions
test
data.
You
may
also
use
the
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
calculated
using
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
combined
with
resin
and
gel
coat
use
data,
to
calculate
your
organic
HAP
emissions.

63.5797
How
do
I
determine
the
organic
HAP
content
of
my
resins
and
gel
coats?
In
order
to
determine
the
organic
HAP
content
of
resins
and
gel
coats,
you
may
rely
on
information
provided
by
the
material
manufacturer,
such
as
manufacturer's
formulation
data
and
material
safety
data
sheets
(
MSDS),
using
the
procedures
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section,
as
applicable.
(
a)
Include
in
the
organic
HAP
total
each
organic
HAP
that
is
present
at
0.1
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration­
defined
carcinogens,
as
specified
in
29
CFR
1910.1200(
d)(
4)
and
at
1.0
percent
by
mass
or
more
for
other
organic
HAP
compounds.
(
b)
If
the
organic
HAP
content
is
provided
by
the
material
supplier
or
manufacturer
as
a
range,
you
must
use
the
upper
limit
of
the
range
for
determining
compliance.
If
a
separate
measurement
of
the
total
organic
HAP
content,
such
as
an
analysis
of
the
material
by
EPA
Method
311
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
63,
exceeds
the
upper
limit
of
the
range
of
the
total
organic
HAP
content
provided
by
the
material
supplier
or
manufacturer,
then
you
must
use
the
measured
organic
HAP
content
to
determine
compliance.
(
c)
If
the
organic
HAP
content
is
provided
as
a
single
value,
you
may
use
that
value
to
determine
compliance.
If
a
separate
measurement
of
the
total
organic
HAP
content
is
made
and
is
less
than
2
percentage
points
higher
than
the
value
for
total
organic
HAP
content
provided
by
the
material
supplier
or
manufacturer,
then
you
still
may
use
the
provided
value
to
demonstrate
compliance.
If
the
measured
total
organic
HAP
content
exceeds
the
provided
value
by
2
percentage
points
or
more,
then
you
must
use
the
measured
organic
HAP
content
to
determine
compliance.

§
63.5798
What
if
I
want
to
use,
or
I
manufacture,
an
application
technology
(
new
or
existing)
whose
organic
HAP
emissions
characteristics
are
not
represented
by
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart?
If
you
wish
to
use
a
resin
or
gel
coat
application
technology
(
new
or
existing),
whose
emission
characteristics
are
not
represented
by
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
you
may
use
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)
or
(
b)
of
this
section
to
establish
an
organic
HAP
emissions
factor.
This
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
may
then
be
used
to
determine
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
in
this
subpart,
and
to
calculate
facility
organic
HAP
emissions.
(
a)
Perform
a
organic
HAP
emissions
test
to
determine
a
site­
specific
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
using
the
test
procedures
in
§
63.5850.
(
b)
Submit
a
petition
to
the
Administrator
for
administrative
review
of
this
subpart.
This
petition
must
contain
a
description
of
the
resin
or
gel
coat
application
technology
and
supporting
organic
HAP
emissions
test
data
obtained
using
EPA
test
methods
or
their
equivalent.
The
emission
test
data
should
be
obtained
using
a
range
of
resin
or
gel
coat
HAP
contents
to
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
the
technology
under
the
different
conditions,
and
to
demonstrate
that
the
technology
will
be
effective
at
different
sites.
We
will
review
the
submitted
data,
and,
if
appropriate,
update
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.

§
63.5799
How
do
I
calculate
my
facility's
organic
HAP
emissions
on
a
tpy
basis
for
purposes
of
determining
which
paragraphs
of
§
63.5805
apply?
To
calculate
your
facility's
organic
HAP
emissions
in
tpy
for
purposes
of
determining
which
paragraphs
in
§
63.5805
apply
to
you,
you
must
use
the
procedures
in
either
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
for
new
facilities
prior
to
startup,
or
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
for
existing
facilities
and
new
facilities
after
startup.
You
are
not
required
to
calculate
or
report
emissions
under
this
section
if
you
are
an
existing
facility
that
does
not
have
centrifugal
casting
or
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations,
or
a
new
facility
that
does
not
have
any
of
the
following
operations:
Open
molding,
centrifugal
casting,
continuous
lamination/
casting,
pultrusion,
SMC
and
BMC
manufacturing,
and
mixing.
Emissions
calculation
and
emission
reporting
procedures
in
other
sections
of
this
subpart
still
apply.
Calculate
organic
HAP
emissions
prior
to
any
add­
on
control
device,
and
do
not
include
organic
HAP
emissions
from
any
resin
or
gel
coat
used
in
operations
subject
to
the
Boat
Manufacturing
NESHAP,
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
VVVV,
or
from
the
manufacture
of
large
parts
as
defined
in
§
63.5805(
d)(
2).
For
centrifugal
casting
operations
at
existing
facilities,
do
not
include
any
organic
HAP
emissions
where
resin
or
gel
coat
is
applied
to
an
open
centrifugal
mold
using
open
molding
application
techniques.
Table
1
and
the
Table
1
footnotes
to
this
subpart
present
more
information
on
calculating
centrifugal
casting
organic
HAP
emissions.
The
timing
and
reporting
of
these
calculations
is
discussed
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
a)
For
new
facilities
prior
to
startup,
calculate
a
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
for
the
operations
specified
in
§
63.5805(
b)
and
(
d)
on
a
lbs/
ton
of
resin
and
gel
coat
basis.
Base
the
weighted
average
on
your
projected
operation
for
the
12
months
subsequent
to
facility
startup.
Multiply
the
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
by
projected
resin
use
over
the
same
period.
You
may
calculate
your
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
based
on
the
factors
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
or
you
may
use
any
HAP
emissions
factor
approved
by
us,
such
as
factors
from
the
Compilation
of
Air
Pollutant
Emissions
Factors,
Volume
I:
Stationary
Point
and
Area
Sources
(
AP
 
42),
or
organic
HAP
emissions
test
data
from
similar
facilities.
(
b)
For
existing
facilities
and
new
facilities
after
startup,
you
may
use
the
procedures
in
either
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
or
(
2)
of
this
section.
If
the
emission
factors
for
an
existing
facility
have
changed
over
the
period
of
time
prior
to
their
initial
compliance
date
due
to
incorporation
of
pollution­
prevention
control
techniques,
existing
facilities
may
base
the
average
emission
factor
on
their
operations
as
they
exist
on
the
compliance
date.
If
an
existing
facility
has
accepted
an
enforceable
permit
limit
of
less
than
100
tons
per
year
of
HAP,
and
can
demonstrate
that
they
will
operate
at
that
level
subsequent
to
the
compliance
date,
the
they
can
be
deemed
to
be
below
the
100
tpy
threshold.
(
1)
Use
a
calculated
emission
factor.
Calculate
a
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
on
a
lbs/
ton
of
resin
and
gel
coat
basis.
Base
the
weighted
average
on
the
prior
12
months
of
operation.
Multiply
the
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
by
resin
and
gel
coat
use
over
the
same
period.
You
may
calculate
this
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
based
on
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
or
you
may
use
any
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
approved
by
us,
such
as
factors
from
AP
 
42,
or
site­
specific
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
if
they
are
supported
by
HAP
emissions
test
data.
(
2)
Conduct
performance
testing.
Conduct
performance
testing
using
the
test
procedures
in
§
63.5850
to
determine
a
site­
specific
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
in
units
of
lbs/
ton
of
resin
and
gel
coat
used.
Conduct
the
test
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00084
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19405
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
under
conditions
expected
to
result
in
the
highest
possible
organic
HAP
emissions.
Multiply
this
factor
by
annual
resin
and
gel
coat
use
to
determine
annual
organic
HAP
emissions.
This
calculation
must
be
repeated
and
reported
annually.
(
c)
Existing
facilities
must
initially
perform
this
calculation
based
on
their
12
months
of
operation
prior
to
April
21,
2003,
and
include
this
information
with
their
initial
notification
report.
Existing
facilities
must
repeat
the
calculation
based
on
their
resin
and
gel
coat
use
in
the
12
months
prior
to
their
initial
compliance
date,
and
submit
this
information
with
their
initial
compliance
report.
After
their
initial
compliance
date,
existing
and
new
facilities
must
recalculate
organic
HAP
emissions
over
the
12­
month
period
ending
June
30
or
December
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
their
compliance
date
specified
in
§
63.5800.
Subsequent
calculations
should
cover
the
periods
in
the
semiannual
compliance
reports.

Compliance
Dates
and
Standards
§
63.5800
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
You
must
comply
with
the
standards
in
this
subpart
by
the
dates
specified
in
Table
2
to
this
subpart.
Facilities
meeting
a
organic
HAP
emissions
standard
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average
must
begin
collecting
data
on
the
compliance
date
in
order
to
demonstrate
compliance.

§
63.5805
What
standards
must
I
meet
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
You
must
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
h)
of
this
section
that
apply
to
you.
You
may
elect
to
comply
using
any
options
to
meeting
these
standards
described
in
§
§
63.5810
through
63.5830.
Use
the
procedures
in
§
63.5799
to
determine
if
you
meet
or
exceed
the
100
tpy
threshold.
(
a)
If
you
have
an
existing
facility
that
does
not
have
any
centrifugal
casting
or
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations,
or
an
existing
facility
that
does
have
centrifugal
casting
or
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations,
but
the
combination
of
all
centrifugal
casting
and
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations
emit
less
than
100
tpy
of
HAP,
you
must
meet
the
annual
average
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart
and
the
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you.
(
b)
If
you
have
an
existing
facility
that
emits
100
tpy
or
more
of
HAP
from
the
combination
of
all
centrifugal
casting
and
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations,
you
must
reduce
the
total
organic
HAP
emissions
from
these
operations
by
at
least
95
percent
by
weight
and
meet
any
applicable
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you.
Operations
other
than
centrifugal
casting,
and
continuous
lamination/
casting,
must
meet
the
requirements
in
Tables
3
and
4
to
this
subpart.
As
an
alternative
to
meeting
95
percent
by
weight,
you
may
meet
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Table
5
to
this
subpart.
If
you
have
a
continuous
lamination/
casting
operation,
that
operation
may
alternatively
meet
a
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
of
1.47
lbs/
ton
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
applied.
For
centrifugal
casting,
the
percent
reduction
requirement
does
not
apply
to
organic
HAP
emissions
that
occur
during
resin
application
onto
an
open
centrifugal
casting
mold
using
open
molding
application
techniques.
(
c)
If
you
have
a
new
facility
that
emits
less
than
100
tpy
of
HAP
from
the
combination
of
all
open
molding,
centrifugal
casting,
continuous
lamination/
casting,
pultrusion,
SMC
manufacturing,
mixing,
and
BMC
manufacturing,
you
must
meet
the
annual
average
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart
and
the
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you.
(
d)(
1)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
d)(
2)
of
this
section,
if
you
have
a
new
facility
that
emits
100
tpy
or
more
of
HAP
from
the
combination
of
all
open
molding,
centrifugal
casting,
continuous
lamination/
casting,
pultrusion,
SMC
manufacturing,
mixing,
and
BMC
manufacturing,
you
must
reduce
the
total
organic
HAP
emissions
from
these
operations
by
at
least
95
percent
by
weight
and
meet
any
applicable
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you.
As
an
alternative
to
meeting
95
percent
by
weight,
you
may
meet
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Table
5
to
this
subpart.
If
you
have
a
continuous
lamination/
casting
operation,
that
operation
may
alternatively
meet
a
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
of
1.47
lbs/
ton
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
applied.
(
2)(
i)
If
your
new
facility
manufactures
large
reinforced
plastic
composites
parts
using
open
molding
or
pultrusion
operations,
the
specific
open
molding
and
pultrusion
operations
used
to
produce
large
parts
are
not
required
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
by
95
weight
percent,
but
must
meet
the
emission
limits
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart.
(
ii)
A
large
open
molding
part
is
defined
as
a
part
that,
when
the
final
finished
part
is
enclosed
in
the
smallest
rectangular
six­
sided
box
into
which
the
part
can
fit,
the
total
interior
volume
of
the
box
exceeds
250
cubic
feet,
or
any
interior
sides
of
the
box
exceed
50
square
feet.
(
iii)
A
large
pultruded
part
is
a
part
that
exceeds
an
outside
perimeter
of
24
inches
or
has
more
than
350
reinforcements.
(
e)
If
you
have
a
new
or
existing
facility
subject
to
paragraphs
(
a)
or
(
c)
of
this
section
at
their
initial
compliance
date,
that
subsequently
meets
or
exceeds
the
100
tpy
threshold
in
any
calendar
year,
you
must
notify
your
permitting
authority
in
your
compliance
report.
You
may
at
the
same
time
request
a
onetime
exemption
from
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)
or
(
d)
of
this
section
in
your
compliance
report
if
you
can
demonstrate
all
of
the
following:
(
1)
The
exceedance
of
the
threshold
was
due
to
circumstances
that
will
not
to
be
repeated.
(
2)
The
average
annual
organic
HAP
emissions
from
the
potentially
affected
operations
for
the
last
3
years
were
below
100
tpy.
(
3)
Projected
organic
HAP
emissions
for
the
next
calendar
year
are
below
100
tpy,
based
on
projected
resin
and
gel
coat
use
and
the
HAP
emission
factors
calculated
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.5799
(
f)
If
you
apply
for
an
exemption
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
and
subsequently
exceed
the
HAP
emission
thresholds
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)
or
(
c)
of
this
section
over
the
next
12­
month
period,
you
must
notify
the
permitting
authority
in
your
semiannual
report,
the
exemption
is
removed,
and
your
facility
must
comply
with
paragraphs
(
b)
or
(
d)
of
this
section
within
3
years
from
the
time
your
organic
HAP
emissions
first
exceeded
the
threshold.
(
g)
If
you
have
repair
operations
subject
to
this
subpart
as
defined
in
§
63.5785,
these
repair
operations
must
meet
the
requirements
in
Tables
3
and
4
to
this
subpart,
and
are
not
required
to
meet
the
95
percent
organic
HAP
emissions
reduction
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)
or
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
h)
If
you
use
an
add­
on
control
device
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
you
must
meet
all
requirements
contained
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
SS.

Options
for
Meeting
Standards
§
63.5810
What
are
my
options
for
meeting
the
standards
for
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operations
at
new
and
existing
sources?
You
must
use
one
of
the
following
methods
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section
to
meet
the
standards
in
§
63.5805.
When
you
are
complying
with
an
emission
limit
in
Tables
3
or
5
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00085
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19406
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
to
this
subpart,
you
may
use
any
control
method
that
reduces
organic
HAP
emissions,
including
reducing
resin
and
gel
coat
organic
HAP
content,
changing
to
nonatomized
mechanical
application,
covered
curing
techniques,
and
routing
part
or
all
of
your
emissions
to
an
addon
control.
The
necessary
calculations
must
be
completed
within
30
days
after
the
end
of
each
month.
You
may
switch
between
the
compliance
options
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.
When
you
change
to
an
option
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average,
you
must
base
the
average
on
the
previous
12
months
of
data
calculated
using
the
compliance
option
you
are
currently
using
unless
you
were
using
the
compliant
materials
option
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section.
In
this
case,
you
must
immediately
begin
collecting
resin
and
gel
coat
use
data
and
demonstrate
compliance
12
months
after
changing
options.
(
a)
Meet
the
individual
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
for
each
operation.
Demonstrate
that
you
meet
the
individual
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
for
each
open
molding
operation
and
for
each
centrifugal
casting
operation
type
in
Tables
3,
or
5
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you.
This
is
done
in
two
steps.
First,
determine
an
organic
HAP
factor
for
each
individual
resin
and
gel
coat,
application
method,
and
control
method
you
use
in
a
particular
operation.
Second,
calculate,
for
each
particular
operation
type,
a
weighted
average
of
those
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
based
on
resin
and
gel
coat
use.
Your
calculated
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
must
either
be
at
or
below
the
applicable
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
in
Tables
3
or
5
to
this
subpart
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average.
Use
the
procedures
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
to
calculate
average
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
for
each
of
your
operations.
(
1)
Calculate
your
actual
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
for
each
different
process
stream
within
each
operation
type.
A
process
stream
is
defined
as
each
individual
combination
of
resin
or
gel
coat,
application
technique,
and
control
technique.
Process
streams
within
operations
types
are
considered
different
from
each
other
if
any
of
the
following
three
characteristics
vary:
The
neat
resin
plus
or
neat
gel
coat
plus
organic
HAP
content,
the
application
technique,
or
the
control
technique.
You
must
calculate
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
for
each
different
process
stream
by
using
the
appropriate
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart
for
open
molding
and
for
centrifugal
casting,
or
sitespecific
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
discussed
in
§
63.5796.
If
you
want
to
use
vapor
suppressants
to
meet
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
open
molding,
you
must
determine
the
vapor
suppressant
effectiveness
by
conducting
testing
according
to
the
procedures
specified
of
appendix
A
to
subpart
WWWW
of
40
CFR
part
63.
If
you
want
to
use
an
add­
on
control
device
to
meet
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limit,
you
must
determine
the
add­
on
control
factor
by
conducting
capture
and
control
efficiency
testing,
using
the
procedures
specified
in
§
63.5850.
The
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
calculated
from
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
or
site­
specific
emissions
factors,
is
multiplied
by
the
add­
on
control
factor
to
calculate
the
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
after
control.
Use
Equation
1
of
this
section
to
calculate
the
add­
on
control
factor
used
in
the
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
equations.

Add
on
Control
Eq
­
Factor
=
1
%
Control
Efficiency
1)
 
100
(
.

Where:

Percent
Control
Efficiency=
a
value
calculated
from
organic
HAP
emissions
test
measurements
made
according
to
the
requirements
of
§
63.5850
to
this
subpart
(
2)
Calculate
your
actual
operation
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
for
the
last
12
months
for
each
open
molding
operation
type
and
for
each
centrifugal
casting
operation
type
by
calculating
the
weighted
average
of
the
individual
process
stream
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
within
each
respective
operation.
To
do
this,
sum
the
product
of
each
individual
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
calculated
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section
and
the
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
usage
that
correspond
to
the
individual
factors
and
divide
the
numerator
by
the
total
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
used
in
that
operation
type.
Use
Equation
2
of
this
section
to
calculate
your
actual
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
for
each
open
molding
operation
type
and
each
centrifugal
casting
operation
type.

Actual
Ope
Actual
Pro
Material
Eq
i
i
n
ration
Organic
HAP
Emissions
Factor
=
cess
Stream
EF
Material
2)
i
i
i=
1
n
 
(
)
 

 =
1
(
.

Where:

Actual
Process
Stream
EFi=
actual
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
for
process
stream
i,
lbs/
ton
Materiali=
neat
resin
plus
or
neat
gel
coat
plus
used
during
the
last
12
calendar
months
for
process
stream
i,
tons
n=
number
of
process
streams
where
you
calculated
an
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
(
3)
Compare
each
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
calculated
in
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
of
this
section
with
its
corresponding
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
in
Tables
3
or
5
to
this
subpart.
If
all
emissions
factors
are
equal
to
or
less
than
their
corresponding
emission
limits,
then
you
are
in
compliance.
(
b)
HAP
Emissions
factor
averaging
option.
Demonstrate
each
month
that
you
meet
each
weighted
average
of
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Tables
3
or
5
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you.
When
using
this
option,
you
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
all
your
open
molding
operations,
and
then
separately
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
all
your
centrifugal
casting
operations.
Open
molding
operations
and
centrifugal
casting
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00086
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.000</
MATH>
ER21AP03.001</
MATH>
19407
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
operations
may
not
be
averaged
with
each
other.
(
1)
Each
month
calculate
the
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
all
open
molding
operations
and
the
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
all
centrifugal
casting
operations
for
your
facility
for
the
last
12­
month
period
to
determine
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
you
must
meet.
To
do
this,
multiply
the
individual
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Tables
3
or
5
to
this
subpart
for
each
open
molding
(
centrifugal
casting)
operation
type
by
the
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
or
neat
gel
coat
plus
used
in
the
last
12
months
for
each
open
molding
(
centrifugal
casting)
operation
type,
sum
these
results,
and
then
divide
this
sum
by
the
total
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
used
in
open
molding
(
centrifugal
casting)
over
the
last
12
months.
Use
Equation
3
of
this
section
to
calculate
the
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
all
open
molding
operations
and
separately
for
all
centrifugal
casting
operations.

Weighted
A
EL
Material
Eq
i
i
n
i
i
n
verage
Emission
Limit
=
Material
3)
i
 
(
)
=

=
 

 
1
1
(
.

Where:
ELi=
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
operation
type
i,
lbs/
ton
from
Tables
3,
5
or
7
to
this
subpart
Materiali=
neat
resin
plus
or
neat
gel
coat
plus
used
during
the
last
12­
month
period
for
operation
type
i,
tons
n=
number
of
operations
(
2)
Each
month
calculate
your
actual
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
for
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting.
To
do
this,
multiply
your
actual
open
molding
(
centrifugal
casting)
operation
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
and
the
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
used
in
each
open
molding
(
centrifugal
casting)
operation
type,
sum
the
results,
and
divide
this
sum
by
the
total
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
used
in
open
molding
(
centrifugal
casting)
operations.
You
must
calculate
your
actual
individual
HAP
emissions
factors
for
each
operation
type
as
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
Use
Equation
4
of
this
section
to
calculate
your
actual
weighted
average
organic
HAP
emissions
factor.

Actual
Wei
Actual
Ope
Material
Eq
i
i
n
ghted
Average
Organic
HAP
Emissions
Factor
=
ration
EF
Material
4)
i
i
i=
1
n
 
(
)
 

 =
1
(
.

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

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

You
must
use
one
or
more
of
the
options
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section
to
meet
the
standards
in
§
63.5805.
Use
the
calculation
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00087
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.002</
MATH>
ER21AP03.003</
MATH>
19408
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
procedures
in
§
§
63.5865
through
63.5890.
(
a)
Compliant
line
option.
Demonstrate
that
each
continuous
lamination
line
and
each
continuous
casting
line
complies
with
the
applicable
standard.
(
b)
Averaging
option.
Demonstrate
that
all
continuous
lamination
and
continuous
casting
lines
combined,
comply
with
the
applicable
standard.
(
c)
Add­
on
control
device
option.
If
your
operation
must
meet
the
58.5
weight
percent
organic
HAP
emissions
reduction
limit
in
Table
3
to
this
subpart,
you
have
the
option
of
demonstrating
that
you
achieve
95
percent
reduction
of
all
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions.
(
d)
Combination
option.
Use
any
combination
of
options
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
or,
for
affected
sources
at
existing
facilities,
any
combination
of
options
in
paragraphs
(
a),
(
b),
and
(
c)
of
this
section
(
in
which
one
or
more
lines
meet
the
standards
on
their
own,
two
or
more
lines
averaged
together
meet
the
standards,
and
one
or
more
lines
have
their
wet­
out
areas
controlled
to
a
level
of
95
percent).

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

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

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.5835
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?
(
a)
You
must
be
in
compliance
at
all
times
with
the
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart,
as
well
as
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
Tables
3,
or
5,
or
the
organic
HAP
content
limits
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart,
as
applicable,
that
you
are
meeting
without
the
use
of
add­
on
controls.
(
b)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
all
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
this
subpart
that
you
meet
using
add­
on
controls,
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
c)
You
must
always
operate
and
maintain
your
affected
source,
including
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i).
(
d)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
for
any
organic
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00088
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19409
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
HAP
emissions
limits
you
meet
using
an
add­
on
control.

Testing
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.5840
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
a
performance
test
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstration?
You
must
conduct
performance
tests,
performance
evaluations,
design
evaluations,
capture
efficiency
testing,
and
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations
by
the
compliance
date
specified
in
Table
2
to
this
subpart,
with
three
exceptions.
Open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operations
that
elect
to
meet
a
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average
must
initiate
collection
of
the
required
data
on
the
compliance
date,
and
demonstrate
compliance
1
year
after
the
compliance
date.
New
sources
that
use
add­
on
controls
to
initially
meet
compliance
must
demonstrate
compliance
within
180
days
after
their
compliance
date.

§
63.5845
When
must
I
conduct
subsequentperformance
tests?
You
must
conduct
a
performance
test
every
5
years
following
the
initial
performance
test
for
any
standard
you
meet
with
an
add­
on
control
device.

§
63.5850
How
do
I
conduct
performance
tests,
performance
evaluations,
and
design
evaluations?
(
a)
If
you
are
using
any
add­
on
controls
to
meet
a
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
in
this
subpart,
you
must
conduct
each
performance
test,
performance
evaluation,
and
design
evaluation
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
SS,
that
applies
to
you.
The
basic
requirements
for
performance
tests,
performance
evaluations,
and
design
evaluations
are
presented
in
Table
6
to
this
subpart.
(
b)
Each
performance
test
must
be
conducted
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
under
the
specific
conditions
that
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
SS,
specifies.
(
c)
Each
performance
evaluation
must
be
conducted
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.8(
e)
as
applicable
and
under
the
specific
conditions
that
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
SS,
specifies.
(
d)
You
may
not
conduct
performance
tests
or
performance
evaluations
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1).
(
e)
You
must
conduct
the
control
device
performance
test
using
the
emission
measurement
methods
specified
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Use
either
Method
1
or
1A
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
as
appropriate,
to
select
the
sampling
sites.
(
2)
Use
Method
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F
or
2G
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
as
appropriate,
to
measure
gas
volumetric
flow
rate.
(
3)
Use
Method
18
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
to
measure
organic
HAP
emissions
or
use
Method
25A
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
to
measure
total
gaseous
organic
emissions
as
a
surrogate
for
total
organic
HAP
emissions.
If
you
use
Method
25A,
you
must
assume
that
all
gaseous
organic
emissions
measured
as
carbon
are
organic
HAP
emissions.
If
you
use
Method
18
and
the
number
of
organic
HAP
in
the
exhaust
stream
exceeds
five,
you
must
take
into
account
the
use
of
multiple
chromatographic
columns
and
analytical
techniques
to
get
an
accurate
measure
of
at
least
90
percent
of
the
total
organic
HAP
mass
emissions.
Do
not
use
Method
18
to
measure
organic
HAP
emissions
from
a
combustion
device;
use
instead
Method
25A
and
assume
that
all
gaseous
organic
mass
emissions
measured
as
carbon
are
organic
HAP
emissions.
(
4)
You
may
use
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM)
D6420
 
99
(
available
for
purchase
from
at
least
one
of
the
following
addresses:
100
Barr
Harbor
Drive,
West
Conshohocken,
PA
19428
 
2959;
or
University
Microfilms
International,
300
North
Zeeb
Road,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48106.)
in
lieu
of
Method
18
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
under
the
conditions
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
4)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
If
the
target
compound(
s)
is
listed
in
Section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99
and
the
target
concentration
is
between
150
parts
per
billion
by
volume
and
100
parts
per
million
by
volume.
(
ii)
If
the
target
compound(
s)
is
not
listed
in
Section
1.1
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
but
is
potentially
detected
by
mass
spectrometry,
an
additional
system
continuing
calibration
check
after
each
run,
as
detailed
in
Section
10.5.3
of
ASTM
D6420
 
99,
must
be
followed,
met,
documented,
and
submitted
with
the
performance
test
report
even
if
you
do
not
use
a
moisture
condenser
or
the
compound
is
not
considered
soluble.
(
iii)
If
a
minimum
of
one
sample/
analysis
cycle
is
completed
at
least
every
15
minutes.
(
5)
Use
the
procedures
in
EPA
Method
3B
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
to
determine
an
oxygen
correction
factor
if
required
by
§
63.997(
e)(
2)(
iii)(
C).
You
may
use
American
Society
of
Mechanical
Engineers
(
ASME)
PTC
19
 
10
 
1981
 
Part
10
(
available
for
purchase
from
ASME,
P.
O.
Box
2900,
22
Law
Drive,
Fairfield,
New
Jersey,
07007
 
2900,
or
online
at
www.
asme.
org/
catalog)
as
an
alternative
to
EPA
Method
3B
of
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.
(
f)
The
control
device
performance
test
must
consist
of
three
runs
and
each
run
must
last
at
least
1
hour.
The
production
conditions
during
the
test
runs
must
represent
normal
production
conditions
with
respect
to
the
types
of
parts
being
made
and
material
application
methods.
The
production
conditions
during
the
test
must
also
represent
maximum
potential
emissions
with
respect
to
the
organic
HAP
content
of
the
materials
being
applied
and
the
material
application
rates.
(
g)
If
you
are
using
a
concentrator/
oxidizer
control
device,
you
must
test
the
combined
flow
upstream
of
the
concentrator,
and
the
combined
outlet
flow
from
both
the
oxidizer
and
the
concentrator
to
determine
the
overall
control
device
efficiency.
If
the
outlet
flow
from
the
concentrator
and
oxidizer
are
exhausted
in
separate
stacks,
you
must
test
both
stacks
simultaneously
with
the
inlet
to
the
concentrator
to
determine
the
overall
control
device
efficiency.
(
h)
During
the
test,
you
must
also
monitor
and
record
separately
the
amounts
of
production
resin,
tooling
resin,
pigmented
gel
coat,
clear
gel
coat,
and
tooling
gel
coat
applied
inside
the
enclosure
that
is
vented
to
the
control
device.

§
63.5855
What
are
my
monitor
installation
and
operation
requirements?

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

§
63.5860
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
standards?

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

Emission
Factor,
Percent
Reduction,
and
Capture
Efficiency
Calculation
Procedures
for
Continuous
Lamination/
Casting
Operations
§
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00089
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19410
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Tables
10
and
11
to
this
subpart
for
each
data
requirement
that
applies
to
your
facility.
(
b)
For
continuous
lamination/
casting
affected
sources
complying
with
a
lbs/
ton
limit,
you
must
generate
the
data
identified
in
Tables
11
and
12
to
this
subpart
for
each
data
requirement
that
applies
to
your
facility.

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

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

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

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

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00090
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19411
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
§
63.5880
How
do
I
determine
how
much
neat
resin
plus
is
applied
to
the
line
and
how
much
neat
gel
coat
plus
is
applied
to
the
line
for
continuous
lamination/
casting
operations?

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

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

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

PR
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
=
 
×
(
)
(
)

(
)
100
(
Eq.
1)

Where:
PR=
percent
reduction
Inlet=
HAP
emissions
entering
the
control
device,
lbs
per
year
Outlet=
HAP
emissions
exiting
the
control
device
to
the
atmosphere,
lbs
per
year
PR
WAE
O
WAE
WAE
O
Eq
u
u
c
u
u
=
+
(
) 
+
(
)
+
(
)
×
O
100
2)
c
(
.

Where:

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

PR
WAE
O
WAE
O
WAE
O
ui
uj
j
n
i
m
ci
cj
j
p
i
o
ui
uj
j
n
i
m
=
+
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
+
 
 
 
 
 
 
+
 
 
 
 
 
 
×
=
=
=
=

=
=
 
 
 
 

 
 
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
(
Eq.
3)

Where:

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

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

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

E
WAE
WAE
O
O
R
G
Eq
u
c
u
c
=
+
+
+
+
(
)
(
.
1)

Where:

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

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00091
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.004</
MATH>
ER21AP03.005</
MATH>
ER21AP03.006</
MATH>
ER21AP03.007</
MATH>
19412
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
E
WAE
WAE
O
O
R
G
Eq
ui
ci
uj
cj
j
p
j
n
i
o
i
m
=
+
+
+

+
=
=
=
=
 
 
 
 
1
1
1
1
(
)
(
.
2)

Where:
E=
HAP
emissions
factor
in
lbs/
ton
of
resin
and
gel
coat
WAEui=
uncontrolled
organic
HAP
emissions
from
wet­
out
area
i,
lbs
per
year
WAEci=
controlled
organic
HAP
emissions
from
wet­
out
area
i,
lbs
per
year
Ouj=
uncontrolled
organic
HAP
emissions
from
oven
j,
lbs
per
year
Ocj=
controlled
organic
HAP
emissions
from
oven
j,
lbs
per
year
i=
number
of
wet­
out
areas
j=
number
of
ovens
m=
number
of
wet­
out
areas
uncontrolled
n=
number
of
ovens
uncontrolled
o=
number
of
wet­
out
areas
controlled
p=
number
of
ovens
controlled
R=
total
usage
of
neat
resin
plus,
tpy
G=
total
usage
of
neat
gel
coat
plus,
tpy
(
c)
Combination
option.
Use
Equations
1
and
2
of
this
section,
as
applicable,
to
demonstrate
compliance.

Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.5895
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

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

§
63.5900
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
standards?

(
a)
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
each
standard
in
§
63.5805
that
applies
to
you
according
to
the
methods
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Compliance
with
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
for
sources
using
addon
control
devices
is
demonstrated
following
the
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
SS.
Sources
using
add­
on
controls
may
also
use
continuous
emissions
monitors
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
as
an
alternative
to
control
parameter
monitoring.
(
2)
Compliance
with
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
is
demonstrated
by
maintaining
a
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
value
less
than
or
equal
to
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
listed
in
Tables
3,
or
5
to
this
subpart,
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average,
or
by
including
in
each
compliance
report
a
statement
that
all
resins
and
gel
coats
meet
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
emissions
limits,
as
discussed
in
§
63.5895(
d).
(
3)
Compliance
with
organic
HAP
content
limits
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart
is
demonstrated
by
maintaining
an
average
organic
HAP
content
value
less
than
or
equal
to
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
contents
listed
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart,
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average,
or
by
including
in
each
compliance
report
a
statement
that
all
resins
and
gel
coats
individually
meet
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
content
limits,
as
discussed
in
§
63.5895(
d).
(
4)
Compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart
is
demonstrated
by
performing
the
work
practice
required
for
your
operation.
(
b)
You
must
report
each
deviation
from
each
standard
in
§
63.5805
that
applies
to
you.
The
deviations
must
be
reported
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.5910.
(
c)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section,
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown
or
malfunction,
you
must
meet
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
and
work
practice
standards
that
apply
to
you.
(
d)
When
you
use
an
add­
on
control
device
to
meet
standards
in
§
63.5805,
you
are
not
required
to
meet
those
standards
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
but
you
must
operate
your
affected
source
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
(
e)
Consistent
with
§
§
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00092
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.008</
MATH>
19413
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Administrator's
satisfaction
that
you
were
operating
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
The
Administrator
will
determine
whether
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
are
violations,
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e).

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
§
63.5905
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?
(
a)
You
must
submit
all
of
the
notifications
in
Table
13
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you
by
the
dates
specified
in
Table
13
to
this
subpart.
The
notifications
are
described
more
fully
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A,
referenced
in
Table
13
to
this
subpart.
(
b)
If
you
change
any
information
submitted
in
any
notification,
you
must
submit
the
changes
in
writing
to
the
Administrator
within
15
calendar
days
after
the
change.

§
63.5910
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
(
a)
You
must
submit
each
report
in
Table
14
to
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
b)
Unless
the
Administrator
has
approved
a
different
schedule
for
submission
of
reports
under
§
63.10(
a),
you
must
submit
each
report
by
the
date
specified
in
Table
14
to
this
subpart
and
according
to
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
first
compliance
report
must
cover
the
period
beginning
on
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.5800
and
ending
on
June
30
or
December
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
the
end
of
the
first
calendar
half
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
source
in
§
63.5800.
(
2)
The
first
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
follows
the
end
of
the
first
calendar
half
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.5800.
(
3)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
cover
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
January
1
through
June
30
or
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
July
1
through
December
31.
(
4)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
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
§
70.6
(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
you
may
submit
the
first
and
subsequent
compliance
reports
according
to
the
dates
the
permitting
authority
has
established
instead
of
according
to
the
dates
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
c)
The
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Company
name
and
address.
(
2)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official
with
that
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
3)
Date
of
the
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
(
4)
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
and
you
took
actions
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
the
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
(
5)
If
there
are
no
deviations
from
any
organic
HAP
emissions
limitations
(
emissions
limit
and
operating
limit)
that
apply
to
you,
and
there
are
no
deviations
from
the
requirements
for
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart,
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limitations
or
work
practice
standards
during
the
reporting
period.
(
6)
If
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS),
including
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
and
an
operating
parameter
monitoring
system
were
out
of
control,
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
a
statement
that
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
CMS
was
out
of
control
during
the
reporting
period.
(
d)
For
each
deviation
from
a
organic
HAP
emissions
limitation
(
i.
e.,
emissions
limit
and
operating
limit)
and
for
each
deviation
from
the
requirements
for
work
practice
standards
that
occurs
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
not
using
a
CMS
to
comply
with
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limitations
or
work
practice
standards
in
this
subpart,
the
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
and
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
1)
The
total
operating
time
of
each
affected
source
during
the
reporting
period.
(
2)
Information
on
the
number,
duration,
and
cause
of
deviations
(
including
unknown
cause,
if
applicable),
as
applicable,
and
the
corrective
action
taken.
(
e)
For
each
deviation
from
a
organic
HAP
emissions
limitation
(
i.
e.,
emissions
limit
and
operating
limit)
occurring
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
using
a
CMS
to
comply
with
the
organic
HAP
emissions
limitation
in
this
subpart,
you
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
and
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
12)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
1)
The
date
and
time
that
each
malfunction
started
and
stopped.
(
2)
The
date
and
time
that
each
CMS
was
inoperative,
except
for
zero
(
lowlevel
and
high­
level
checks.
(
3)
The
date,
time,
and
duration
that
each
CMS
was
out
of
control,
including
the
information
in
§
63.8(
c)(
8).
(
4)
The
date
and
time
that
each
deviation
started
and
stopped,
and
whether
each
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
or
during
another
period.
(
5)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviation
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
that
reporting
period.
(
6)
A
breakdown
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviations
during
the
reporting
period
into
those
that
are
due
to
startup,
shutdown,
control
equipment
problems,
process
problems,
other
known
causes,
and
other
unknown
causes.
(
7)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
CMS
downtime
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
of
CMS
downtime
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
that
reporting
period.
(
8)
An
identification
of
each
organic
HAP
that
was
monitored
at
the
affected
source.
(
9)
A
brief
description
of
the
process
units.
(
10)
A
brief
description
of
the
CMS.
(
11)
The
date
of
the
latest
CMS
certification
or
audit.
(
12)
A
description
of
any
changes
in
CMS,
processes,
or
controls
since
the
last
reporting
period.
(
f)
You
must
report
if
you
have
exceeded
the
100
tpy
organic
HAP
emissions
threshold
if
that
exceedance
would
make
your
facility
subject
to
§
63.5805(
b)
or
(
d).
Include
with
this
report
any
request
for
an
exemption
under
§
63.5805(
e).
If
you
receive
an
exemption
under
§
63.5805(
e)
and
subsequently
exceed
the
100
tpy
organic
HAP
emissions
threshold,
you
must
report
this
exceedance
as
required
in
§
63.5805(
f).

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00093
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19414
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
g)
Each
affected
source
that
has
obtained
a
title
V
operating
permit
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
71
must
report
all
deviations
as
defined
in
this
subpart
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A).
If
an
affected
source
submits
a
compliance
report
pursuant
to
Table
14
to
this
subpart
along
with,
or
as
part
of,
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
and
the
compliance
report
includes
all
required
information
concerning
deviations
from
any
organic
HAP
emissions
limitation
(
including
any
operating
limit)
or
work
practice
requirement
in
this
subpart,
submission
of
the
compliance
report
shall
be
deemed
to
satisfy
any
obligation
to
report
the
same
deviations
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report.
However,
submission
of
a
compliance
report
shall
not
otherwise
affect
any
obligation
the
affected
source
may
have
to
report
deviations
from
permit
requirements
to
the
permitting
authority.
(
h)
Submit
compliance
reports
and
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
reports
based
on
the
requirements
in
Table
14
to
this
subpart,
and
not
based
on
the
requirements
in
§
63.999.

§
63.5915
What
records
must
I
keep?
(
a)
You
must
keep
the
records
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
A
copy
of
each
notification
and
report
that
you
submitted
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
including
all
documentation
supporting
any
Initial
Notification
or
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
that
you
submitted,
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv).
(
2)
The
records
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
iii)
through
(
v)
related
to
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
3)
Records
of
performance
tests,
design,
and
performance
evaluations
as
required
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2).
(
b)
If
you
use
an
add­
on
control
device,
you
must
keep
all
records
required
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
SS,
to
show
continuous
compliance
with
this
subpart.
(
c)
You
must
keep
all
data,
assumptions,
and
calculations
used
to
determine
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
or
average
organic
HAP
contents
for
operations
listed
in
Tables
3,
5,
and
7
to
this
subpart.
(
d)
You
must
keep
a
certified
statement
that
you
are
in
compliance
with
the
work
practice
requirements
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart,
as
applicable.
(
e)
For
a
new
or
existing
continuous
lamination/
casting
operation,
you
must
keep
the
records
listed
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section,
when
complying
with
the
percent
reduction
and/
or
lbs/
ton
requirements
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
§
63.5805.
(
1)
You
must
keep
all
data,
assumptions,
and
calculations
used
to
determine
percent
reduction
and/
or
lbs/
ton
as
applicable;
(
2)
You
must
keep
a
brief
description
of
the
rationale
for
the
assignment
of
an
equation
or
factor
to
each
formula;
(
3)
When
using
facility­
specific
organic
HAP
emissions
estimation
equations
or
factors,
you
must
keep
all
data,
assumptions,
and
calculations
used
to
derive
the
organic
HAP
emissions
estimation
equations
and
factors
and
identification
and
rationale
for
the
worst­
case
formula;
and
(
4)
For
all
organic
HAP
emissions
estimation
equations
and
organic
HAP
emissions
factors,
you
must
keep
documentation
that
the
appropriate
permitting
authority
has
approved
them.

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

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

Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.5925
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?

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

§
63.5930
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?

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

§
63.5935
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Terms
used
in
this
subpart
are
defined
in
the
CAA,
in
40
CFR
63.2,
and
in
this
section
as
follows:
Atomized
mechanical
application
means
application
of
resin
or
gel
coat
with
spray
equipment
that
separates
the
liquid
into
a
fine
mist.
This
fine
mist
may
be
created
by
forcing
the
liquid
under
high
pressure
through
an
elliptical
orifice,
bombarding
a
liquid
stream
with
directed
air
jets,
or
a
combination
of
these
techniques.
Bulk
molding
compound
(
BMC)
means
a
putty­
like
molding
compound
containing
resin(
s)
in
a
form
that
is
ready
to
mold.
In
addition
to
resins,
BMC
may
contain
catalysts,
fillers,
and
reinforcements.
Bulk
molding
compound
can
be
used
in
compression
molding
and
injection
molding
operations
to
manufacture
reinforced
plastic
composites
products.
BMC
manufacturing
means
a
process
that
involves
the
preparation
of
BMC.
Centrifugal
casting
means
a
process
for
fabricating
cylindrical
composites,
such
as
pipes,
in
which
composite
materials
are
positioned
inside
a
rotating
hollow
mandrel
and
held
in
place
by
centrifugal
forces
until
the
part
is
sufficiently
cured
to
maintain
its
physical
shape.
Charge
means
the
amount
of
SMC
or
BMC
that
is
placed
into
a
compression
or
injection
mold
necessary
to
complete
one
mold
cycle.
Cleaning
means
removal
of
composite
materials,
such
as
cured
and
uncured
resin
from
equipment,
finished
surfaces,
floors,
hands
of
employees,
or
any
other
surfaces.
Clear
production
gel
coat
means
an
unpigmented,
quick­
setting
resin
used
to
improve
the
surface
appearance
and/

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00094
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19415
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
or
performance
of
composites.
It
can
be
used
to
form
the
surface
layer
of
any
composites
other
than
those
used
for
molds
in
tooling
operations.
Closed
molding
means
a
grouping
of
processes
for
fabricating
composites
in
a
way
that
HAP­
containing
materials
are
not
exposed
to
the
atmosphere
except
during
the
material
loading
stage
(
e.
g.,
compression
molding,
injection
molding,
and
resin
transfer
molding).
Processes
where
the
mold
is
covered
with
plastic
(
or
equivalent
material)
prior
to
resin
application,
and
the
resin
is
injected
into
the
covered
mold
are
also
considered
closed
molding.
Composite
means
a
shaped
and
cured
part
produced
by
using
composite
materials.
Composite
materials
means
the
raw
materials
used
to
make
composites.
The
raw
materials
include
styrene
containing
resins.
They
may
also
include
gel
coat,
monomer,
catalyst,
pigment,
filler,
and
reinforcement.
Compression
molding
means
a
closed
molding
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
composite
materials
are
placed
inside
matched
dies
that
are
used
to
cure
the
materials
under
heat
and
pressure
without
exposure
to
the
atmosphere.
The
addition
of
mold
paste
or
in­
mold
coating
is
considered
part
of
the
closed
molding
process.
The
composite
materials
used
in
this
process
are
generally
SMC
or
BMC.
Compression/
injection
molding
means
a
grouping
of
processes
that
involves
the
use
of
compression
molding
and/
or
injection
molding.
Continuous
casting
means
a
continuous
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
composite
materials
are
placed
on
an
in­
line
conveyor
belt
to
produce
cast
sheets
that
are
cured
in
an
oven.
Continuous
lamination
means
a
continuous
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
composite
materials
are
typically
sandwiched
between
plastic
films,
pulled
through
compaction
rollers,
and
cured
in
an
oven.
This
process
is
generally
used
to
produce
flat
or
corrugated
products
on
an
in­
line
conveyor.
Continuous
lamination/
casting
means
a
grouping
of
processes
that
involves
the
use
of
continuous
lamination
and/
or
continuous
casting.
Controlled
emissions
means
those
organic
HAP
emissions
that
are
vented
from
a
control
device
to
the
atmosphere.
Corrosion­
resistant
gel
coat
means
a
gel
coat
used
on
a
product
made
with
a
corrosion­
resistant
resin
that
has
a
corrosion­
resistant
end­
use
application.
Corrosion­
resistant
end­
use
applications
means
applications
where
the
product
is
manufactured
specifically
for
an
application
that
requires
a
level
of
chemical
inertness
or
resistance
to
chemical
attack
above
that
required
for
typical
reinforced
plastic
composites
products.
These
applications
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
chemical
processing
and
storage;
pulp
and
paper
production;
sewer
and
wastewater
treatment;
power
generation;
potable
water
transfer
and
storage;
food
and
drug
processing;
pollution
or
odor
control;
metals
production
and
plating;
semiconductor
manufacturing;
petroleum
production,
refining,
and
storage;
mining;
textile
production;
nuclear
materials
storage;
swimming
pools;
and
cosmetic
production,
as
well
as
end­
use
applications
that
require
high
strength
resins.
Corrosion­
resistant
industry
standard
includes
the
following
standards:
ASME
RTP
 
1
or
Sect.
X;
ASTM
D5364,
D3299,
D4097,
D2996,
D2997,
D3262,
D3517,
D3754,
D3840,
D4024,
D4160,
D4161,
D4162,
D4184,
D3982,
or
D3839;
ANSI/
AWWA
C950;
UL
215,
1316
or
1746,
IAPMO
PS
 
199,
or
written
customer
requirements
for
resistance
to
specified
chemical
environments.
Corrosion­
resistant
product
means
a
product
made
with
a
corrosion­
resistant
resin
and
is
manufactured
to
a
corrosion­
resistant
industry
standard,
or
a
food
contact
industry
standard,
or
is
manufactured
for
corrosion­
resistant
end­
use
applications
involving
continuous
or
temporary
chemical
exposures.
Corrosion­
resistant
resin
means
a
resin
that
either:
(
1)
Displays
substantial
retention
of
mechanical
properties
when
undergoing
ASTM
C
 
581
coupon
testing,
where
the
resin
is
exposed
for
6
months
or
more
to
one
of
the
following
materials:
Material
with
a
pH
 
12.0
or
 
3.0,
oxidizing
or
reducing
agents,
organic
solvents,
or
fuels
or
additives
as
defined
in
40
CFR
79.2.
In
the
coupon
testing,
the
exposed
resin
needs
to
demonstrate
a
minimum
of
50
percent
retention
of
the
relevant
mechanical
property
compared
to
the
same
resin
in
unexposed
condition.
In
addition,
the
exposed
resin
needs
to
demonstrate
an
increased
retention
of
the
relevant
mechanical
property
of
at
least
20
percentage
points
when
compared
to
a
similarly
exposed
general­
purpose
resin.
For
example,
if
the
general­
purpose
resin
retains
45
percent
of
the
relevant
property
when
tested
as
specified
above,
then
a
corrosion­
resistant
resin
needs
to
retain
at
least
65
percent
(
45
percent
plus
20
percent)
of
its
property.
The
general­
purpose
resin
used
in
the
test
needs
to
have
an
average
molecular
weight
of
greater
than
1,000,
be
formulated
with
a
1:
2
ratio
of
maleic
anhydride
to
phthalic
anhydride
and
100
percent
diethylene
glycol,
and
a
styrene
content
between
43
to
48
percent;
or
(
2)
Complies
with
industry
standards
that
require
specific
exposure
testing
to
corrosive
media,
such
as
UL
1316,
UL
1746,
or
ASTM
F
 
1216.
Doctor
box
means
the
box
or
trough
on
an
SMC
machine
into
which
the
liquid
resin
paste
is
delivered
before
it
is
metered
onto
the
carrier
film.
Filament
application
means
an
open
molding
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
reinforcements
are
fed
through
a
resin
bath
and
wound
onto
a
rotating
mandrel.
The
materials
on
the
mandrel
may
be
rolled
out
or
worked
by
using
nonmechanical
tools
prior
to
curing.
Resin
application
to
the
reinforcement
on
the
mandrel
by
means
other
than
the
resin
bath,
such
as
spray
guns,
pressure­
fed
rollers,
flow
coaters,
or
brushes
is
not
considered
filament
application.
Filled
Resin
means
that
fillers
have
been
added
to
a
resin
such
that
the
amount
of
inert
substances
is
at
least
10
percent
by
weight
of
the
total
resin
plus
filler
mixture.
Filler
putty
made
from
a
resin
is
considered
a
filled
resin.
Fillers
means
inert
substances
dispersed
throughout
a
resin,
such
as
calcium
carbonate,
alumina
trihydrate,
hydrous
aluminum
silicate,
mica,
feldspar,
wollastonite,
silica,
and
talc.
Materials
that
are
not
considered
to
be
fillers
are
glass
fibers
or
any
type
of
reinforcement
and
microspheres.
Fire
retardant
gel
coat
means
a
gel
coat
used
for
products
for
which
lowflame
spread/
low­
smoke
resin
is
used.
Fluid
impingement
technology
means
a
spray
gun
that
produces
an
expanding
non­
misting
curtain
of
liquid
by
the
impingement
of
low­
pressure
uninterrupted
liquid
streams.
Food
contact
industry
standard
means
a
standard
related
to
food
contact
application
contained
in
Food
and
Drug
Administration's
regulations
at
21
CFR
177.2420.
Gel
Coat
means
a
quick­
setting
resin
used
to
improve
surface
appearance
and/
or
performance
of
composites.
It
can
be
used
to
form
the
surface
layer
of
any
composites
other
than
those
used
for
molds
in
tooling
operations.
Gel
coat
application
means
a
process
where
either
clear
production,
pigmented
production,
white/
off­
white
or
tooling
gel
coat
is
applied.
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
means
an
ancillary
process
which
involves
keeping
HAP­
containing
materials,
such
as
resins,
gel
coats,
catalysts,
monomers,
and
cleaners,
in
containers
or
bulk
storage
tanks
for
any
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00095
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19416
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
length
of
time.
Containers
may
include
small
tanks,
totes,
vessels,
and
buckets.
High
Performance
gel
coat
means
a
gel
coat
used
on
products
for
which
National
Science
Foundation,
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture,
ASTM,
durability,
or
other
property
testing
is
required.
High
strength
gel
coat
means
a
gel
coat
applied
to
a
product
that
requires
high
strength
resin.
High
strength
resins
means
polyester
resins
which
have
a
casting
tensile
strength
of
10,000
pounds
per
square
inch
or
more
and
which
are
used
for
manufacturing
products
that
have
high
strength
requirements
such
as
structural
members
and
utility
poles.
Injection
molding
means
a
closed
molding
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
composite
materials
are
injected
under
pressure
into
a
heated
mold
cavity
that
represents
the
exact
shape
of
the
product.
The
composite
materials
are
cured
in
the
heated
mold
cavity.
Low
Flame
Spread/
Low
Smoke
Products
means
products
that
meet
the
following
requirements.
The
products
must
meet
both
the
applicable
flame
spread
requirements
and
the
applicable
smoke
requirements.
Interior
or
exterior
building
application
products
must
meet
an
ASTM
E
 
84
Flame
Spread
Index
of
less
than
or
equal
to
25,
and
Smoke
Developed
Index
of
less
than
or
equal
to
450,
or
pass
National
Fire
Protection
Association
286
Room
Corner
Burn
Test
with
no
flash
over
and
total
smoke
released
not
exceeding
1000
meters
square.
Mass
transit
application
products
must
meet
an
ASTM
E
 
162
Flame
Spread
Index
of
less
than
or
equal
to
35
and
ASTM
E662
Smoke
Density
Ds
@
1.5
minutes
less
than
or
equal
to
100
and
Ds
@
4
minutes
less
than
to
equal
to
200.
Duct
application
products
must
meet
ASTM
E084
Flame
Spread
Index
less
than
or
equal
to
25
and
Smoke
Developed
Index
less
than
or
equal
to
50
on
the
interior
and/
or
exterior
of
the
duct.
Manual
resin
application
means
an
open
molding
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
composite
materials
are
applied
to
the
mold
by
pouring
or
by
using
hands
and
nonmechanical
tools,
such
as
brushes
and
rollers.
Materials
are
rolled
out
or
worked
by
using
nonmechanical
tools
prior
to
curing.
The
use
of
pressure­
fed
rollers
and
flow
coaters
to
apply
resin
is
not
considered
manual
resin
application.
Mechanical
resin
application
means
an
open
molding
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
composite
materials
(
except
gel
coat)
are
applied
to
the
mold
by
using
mechanical
tools
such
as
spray
guns,
pressure­
fed
rollers,
and
flow
coaters.
Materials
are
rolled
out
or
worked
by
using
nonmechanical
tools
prior
to
curing.
Mixing
means
the
blending
or
agitation
of
any
HAP­
containing
materials
in
vessels
that
are
5.00
gallons
(
18.9
liters)
or
larger.
Mixing
may
involve
the
blending
of
resin,
gel
coat,
filler,
reinforcement,
pigments,
catalysts,
monomers,
and
any
other
additives.
Mold
means
a
cavity
or
matrix
into
or
onto
which
the
composite
materials
are
placed
and
from
which
the
product
takes
its
form.
Neat
gel
coat
means
the
resin
as
purchased
for
the
supplier,
but
not
including
any
inert
fillers.
Neat
gel
coat
plus
means
neat
gel
coat
plus
any
organic
HAP­
containing
materials
that
are
added
to
the
gel
coat
by
the
supplier
or
the
facility,
excluding
catalysts
and
promoters.
Neat
gel
coat
plus
does
include
any
additions
of
styrene
or
methyl
methacrylate
monomer
in
any
form,
including
in
catalysts
and
promoters.
Neat
resin
means
the
resin
as
purchased
from
the
supplier,
but
not
including
any
inert
fillers.
Neat
resin
plus
means
neat
resin
plus
any
organic
HAP­
containing
materials
that
are
added
to
the
resin
by
the
supplier
or
the
facility.
Neat
resin
plus
does
not
include
any
added
filler,
reinforcements,
catalysts,
or
promoters.
Neat
resin
does
include
any
additions
of
styrene
or
methyl
methacrylate
monomer
in
any
form,
including
in
catalysts
and
promoters.
Nonatomized
mechanical
application
means
the
use
of
application
tools
other
than
brushes
to
apply
resin
and
gel
coat
where
the
application
tool
has
documentation
provided
by
its
manufacturer
or
user
that
this
design
of
the
application
tool
has
been
organic
HAP
emissions
tested,
and
the
test
results
showed
that
use
of
this
application
tool
results
in
organic
HAP
emissions
that
are
no
greater
than
the
organic
HAP
emissions
predicted
by
the
applicable
nonatomized
application
equation(
s)
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
In
addition,
the
device
must
be
operated
according
to
the
manufacturer's
directions,
including
instructions
to
prevent
the
operation
of
the
device
at
excessive
spray
pressures.
Examples
of
nonatomized
application
include
flow
coaters,
pressure
fed
rollers,
and
fluid
impingement
spray
guns.
Noncorrosion­
resistant
resin
means
any
resin
other
than
a
corrosionresistant
resin
or
a
tooling
resin.
Noncorrosion­
resistant
product
means
any
product
other
than
a
corrosionresistant
product
or
a
mold.
Non­
routine
manufacture
means
that
you
manufacture
parts
to
replace
worn
or
damaged
parts
of
a
reinforced
plastic
composites
product,
or
a
product
containing
reinforced
plastic
composite
parts,
that
was
originally
manufactured
in
another
facility.
For
a
part
to
qualify
as
non­
routine
manufacture,
it
must
be
used
for
repair
or
replacement,
and
the
manufacturing
schedule
must
be
based
on
the
current
or
anticipated
repair
needs
of
the
reinforced
plastic
composites
product,
or
a
product
containing
reinforced
plastic
composite
parts.
Operation
means
a
specific
process
typically
found
at
a
reinforced
plastic
composites
facility.
Examples
of
operations
are
noncorrosion­
resistant
manual
resin
application,
corrosionresistant
mechanical
resin
application,
pigmented
gel
coat
application,
mixing
and
HAP­
containing
materials
storage.
Operation
group
means
a
grouping
of
individual
operations
based
primarily
on
mold
type.
Examples
are
open
molding,
closed
molding,
and
centrifugal
casting.
Open
molding
means
a
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
a
way
that
HAP­
containing
materials
are
exposed
to
the
atmosphere.
Open
molding
includes
processes
such
as
manual
resin
application,
mechanical
resin
application,
filament
application,
and
gel
coat
application.
Open
molding
also
includes
application
of
resins
and
gel
coats
to
parts
that
have
been
removed
from
the
open
mold.
Pigmented
gel
coat
means
a
gel
coat
that
has
a
color,
but
does
not
contain
10
percent
of
more
titanium
dioxide
by
weight.
It
can
be
used
to
form
the
surface
layer
of
any
composites
other
than
those
used
for
molds
in
tooling
operations.
Polymer
casting
means
a
process
for
fabricating
composites
in
which
composite
materials
are
ejected
from
a
casting
machine
or
poured
into
an
open,
partially
open,
or
closed
mold
and
cured.
After
the
composite
materials
are
poured
into
the
mold,
they
are
not
rolled
out
or
worked
while
the
mold
is
open.
The
composite
materials
may
or
may
not
include
reinforcements.
Products
produced
by
the
polymer
casting
process
include
cultured
marble
products
and
polymer
concrete.
Preform
Injection
means
a
form
of
pultrusion
where
liquid
resin
is
injected
to
saturate
reinforcements
in
an
enclosed
system
containing
one
or
more
chambers
with
openings
only
large
enough
to
admit
reinforcements.
Resin,
which
drips
out
of
the
chamber(
s)
during
the
process,
is
collected
in
closed
piping
or
covered
troughs
and
then
into
a
covered
reservoir
for
recycle.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00096
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19417
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Resin
storage
vessels,
reservoirs,
transfer
systems,
and
collection
systems
are
covered
or
shielded
from
the
ambient
air.
Preform
injection
differs
from
direct
die
injection
in
that
the
injection
chambers
are
not
directly
attached
to
the
die.
Prepreg
materials
means
reinforcing
fabric
received
precoated
with
resin
which
is
usually
cured
through
the
addition
of
heat.
Pultrusion
means
a
continuous
process
for
manufacturing
composites
that
have
a
uniform
cross­
sectional
shape.
The
process
consists
of
pulling
a
fiber­
reinforcing
material
through
a
resin
impregnation
chamber
or
bath
and
through
a
shaping
die,
where
the
resin
is
subsequently
cured.
There
are
several
types
of
pultrusion
equipment,
such
as
open
bath,
resin
injection,
and
direct
die
injection
equipment.
Repair
means
application
of
resin
or
gel
coat
to
a
part
to
correct
a
defect,
where
the
resin
or
gel
coat
application
occurs
after
the
part
has
gone
through
all
the
steps
of
its
typical
production
process,
or
the
application
occurs
outside
the
normal
production
area.
For
purposes
of
this
subpart,
rerouting
a
part
back
through
the
normal
production
line,
or
part
of
the
normal
production
line,
is
not
considered
repair.
Resin
transfer
molding
means
a
process
for
manufacturing
composites
whereby
catalyzed
resin
is
transferred
or
injected
into
a
closed
mold
in
which
fiberglass
reinforcement
has
been
placed.
Sheet
molding
compound
(
SMC)
means
a
ready­
to­
mold
putty­
like
molding
compound
that
contains
resin(
s)
processed
into
sheet
form.
The
molding
compound
is
sandwiched
between
a
top
and
a
bottom
film.
In
addition
to
resin(
s),
it
may
also
contain
catalysts,
fillers,
chemical
thickeners,
mold
release
agents,
reinforcements,
and
other
ingredients.
Sheet
molding
compound
can
be
used
in
compression
molding
to
manufacture
reinforced
plastic
composites
products.
Shrinkage
controlled
resin
means
a
resin
that
when
promoted,
catalyzed,
and
filled
according
to
the
resin
manufacturer's
recommendations
demonstrates
less
than
0.3
percent
linear
shrinkage
when
tested
according
to
ASTM
D2566.
SMC
manufacturing
means
a
process
which
involves
the
preparation
of
SMC.
Tooling
gel
coat
means
a
gel
coat
that
is
used
to
form
the
surface
layer
of
molds.
Tooling
gel
coats
generally
have
high
heat
distortion
temperatures,
low
shrinkage,
high
barcol
hardness,
and
high
dimensional
stability.
Tooling
resin
means
a
resin
that
is
used
to
produce
molds.
Tooling
resins
generally
have
high
heat
distortion
temperatures,
low
shrinkage,
high
barcol
hardness,
and
high
dimensional
stability.
Uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions
means
those
organic
HAP
emissions
emitted
from
the
oven
through
closed
vent
systems
to
the
atmosphere
and
not
to
a
control
device.
These
organic
HAP
emissions
do
not
include
organic
HAP
emissions
that
may
escape
into
the
workplace
through
the
opening
of
panels
or
doors
on
the
ovens
or
other
similar
fugitive
organic
HAP
emissions
in
the
workplace.
Uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions
means
any
or
all
of
the
following:
Organic
HAP
emissions
from
wet­
out
areas
that
do
not
have
any
capture
and
control,
organic
HAP
emissions
that
escape
from
wet­
out
area
enclosures,
and
organic
HAP
emissions
from
wet­
out
areas
that
are
captured
by
an
enclosure
but
are
vented
to
the
atmosphere
and
not
to
an
add­
on
control
device.
Unfilled
means
that
there
has
been
no
addition
of
fillers
to
a
resin
or
that
less
than
10
percent
of
fillers
by
weight
of
the
total
resin
plus
filler
mixture
has
been
added.
Vapor
suppressant
means
an
additive,
typically
a
wax,
that
migrates
to
the
surface
of
the
resin
during
curing
and
forms
a
barrier
to
seal
in
the
styrene
and
reduce
styrene
emissions.
Vapor­
suppressed
resin
means
a
resin
containing
a
vapor
suppressant
added
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
styrene
emissions
during
curing.
White
and
off­
white
gel
coat
means
a
gel
coat
that
contains
10
percent
of
more
titanium
dioxide
by
weight.

TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
 
EQUATIONS
TO
CALCULATE
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
FACTORS
FOR
SPECIFIC
OPEN
MOLDING
AND
CENTRIFUGAL
CASTING
PROCESS
STREAMS
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5796,
63.5799(
a)(
1)
and
(
b),
and
63.5810(
a)(
1),
to
calculate
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
for
specific
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
process
streams
you
must
use
the
equations
in
the
following
table:]

If
your
operation
type
is
a
new
or
existing
.
.
.
And
you
use
.
.
.
With
.
.
.
Use
this
organic
HAP
Emissions
Factor
(
EF)
Equation
for
materials
with
less
than
33
percent
organic
HAP
(
19
percent
organic
HAP
for
nonatomized
gel
coat)
1
2
3
.
.
.
Use
this
organic
HAP
Emissions
Factor
(
EF)
Equation
for
materials
with
33
percent
or
more
organic
HAP
(
19
percent
for
nonatomized
gel
coat)
1
2
3
.
.
.

1.
Open
molding
operation
a.
Manual
resin
application
i.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
resin.
EF
=
0.126
×
%
HAP
×
2000.
EF
=
((
0.286
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0529)
×
2000
ii.
Vapor­
suppressed
resin
EF
=
0.126
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
(
1
¥
(
0.5
×
VSE
factor)).
EF
=
((
0.286
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0529)
×
2000
×
(
1
¥
(
0.5
×
VSE
factor
iii.
Vacuum
bagging/
closed­
mold
curing
with
roll
out.
EF
=
0.126
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
0.8.
EF
=
((
0.286
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0529)
×
2000
×
0.8
iv.
Vacuum
bagging/
closed­
mold
curing
without
roll­
out.
EF
=
(
0.126
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
0.5.
EF
=
((
0.286
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0529)
×
2000
×
0.5
b.
Atomized
mechanical
resin
application.
i.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
resin.
EF
=
0.169
×
%
HAP
×
2000.
EF
=
((
0.714
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.18)
×
2000
ii.
Vapor­
suppressed
resin
EF
=
0.169
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
(
1
¥
(
0.45
×
VSE
factor)).
EF
=
((
0.714
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.18)
×
2000
×
(
1
¥
(
0.45
×
VSE
factor))

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00097
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19418
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
 
EQUATIONS
TO
CALCULATE
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
FACTORS
FOR
SPECIFIC
OPEN
MOLDING
AND
CENTRIFUGAL
CASTING
PROCESS
STREAMS
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5796,
63.5799(
a)(
1)
and
(
b),
and
63.5810(
a)(
1),
to
calculate
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
for
specific
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
process
streams
you
must
use
the
equations
in
the
following
table:]

If
your
operation
type
is
a
new
or
existing
.
.
.
And
you
use
.
.
.
With
.
.
.
Use
this
organic
HAP
Emissions
Factor
(
EF)
Equation
for
materials
with
less
than
33
percent
organic
HAP
(
19
percent
organic
HAP
for
nonatomized
gel
coat)
1
2
3
.
.
.
Use
this
organic
HAP
Emissions
Factor
(
EF)
Equation
for
materials
with
33
percent
or
more
organic
HAP
(
19
percent
for
nonatomized
gel
coat)
1
2
3
.
.
.

iii.
Vacuum
bagging/
closed­
mold
curing
with
roll­
out.
EF
=
0.169
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
0.85.
EF
=
((
0.714
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.18)
×
2000
×
0.85
iv.
Vacuum
bagging/
closed­
mold
curing
without
roll­
out.
EF
=
0.169
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
0.55.
EF
=
((
0.714
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.18)
×
2000
×
0.55
c.
Nonatomized
mechanical
resin
application.
v.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
resin.
EF
=
0.107
×
%
HAP
×
2000.
EF
=
((
0.157
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0165)
×
2000
vi.
Vapor­
suppressed
resin
EF
=
0.107
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
(
1
¥
(
0.45
×
VSE
factor)).
EF
=
((
0.157
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0165)
×
2000
×
(
1
¥
(
0.45
×
VSE
factor
vii.
Closed­
mold
curing
with
roll­
out.
EF
=
0.107
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
0.85.
EF
=
((
0.157
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0165)
×
2000
×
0.85
viii.
Vacuum
bagging/
closed­
mold
curing
without
roll­
out.
EF
=
0.107
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
0.55.
EF
=
((
0.157
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0165)
×
2000
×
0.55
d.
Atomized
mechanical
resin
application
with
robotic
or
automated
spray
control
4.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
resin.
EF
=
0.169
×
%
HAP
×
2000
×
0.77.
EF
=
0.77
×
((
0.714
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.18)
×
2000
e.
Filament
application
5
....
i.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
resin.
EF
=
0.184
×
%
HAP
×
2000.
EF
=
((
0.2746
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0298)
×
2000
ii.
Vapor­
suppressed
resin
EF
=
0.12
×
%
HAP
×
2000
EF
=
((
0.2746
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0298)
×
2000
×
0.65
f.
Atomized
spray
gel
coat
application.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
gel
coat.
EF
=
0.446
×
%
HAP
×
2000.
EF
=
((
1.03646
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.195)
×
2000.
g.
Nonatomized
spray
gel
coat
application.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
gel
coat.
EF
=
0.185
×
%
HAP
×
2000.
EF
=
((
0.4506
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0505)
×
2000.
h.
Manual
gel
coat
application
6.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
gel
coat.
EF
=
0.126
×
%
HAP
×
2000
(
for
emissions
estimation
only,
see
footnote
6).
EF
=
((
0.286
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0529)
×
2000
(
for
emissions
estimation
only,
see
footnote
6)

2.
Centrifugal
casting
operations
7
8.
Heated
air
blown
through
molds.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
resin.
EF
=
0.558
×
(%
HAP)
×
2000.
EF
=
0.558
×
(%
HAP)
×
2000.
Vented
molds,
but
air
vented
through
the
molds
is
not
heated.
Nonvapor­
suppressed
resin.
EF
=
0.026
×
(%
HAP)
×
2000.
EF
=
0.026
×
(%
HAP)
×
2000.

Footnotes
to
Table
1
1
To
obtain
the
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
value
for
an
operation
with
an
add­
on
control
device
multiply
the
EF
above
by
the
add­
on
control
factor
calculated
using
Equation
1
of
§
63.5810.
The
organic
HAP
emissions
factors
have
units
of
lbs
of
organic
HAP
per
ton
of
resin
or
gel
coat
applied.
2
Percent
HAP
means
total
weight
percent
of
organic
HAP
(
styrene,
methyl
methacrylate,
and
any
other
organic
HAP)
in
the
resin
or
gel
coat
prior
to
the
addition
of
fillers,
catalyst,
and
promoters.
Input
the
percent
HAP
as
a
decimal,
i.
e.
33
percent
HAP
should
be
input
as
0.33,
not
33.
3
The
VSE
factor
means
the
percent
reduction
in
organic
HAP
emissions
expressed
as
a
decimal
measured
by
the
VSE
test
method
of
appendix
A
to
this
subpart.
4
This
equation
is
based
on
a
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
equation
developed
for
mechanical
atomized
controlled
spray.
It
may
only
be
used
for
automated
or
robotic
spray
systems
with
atomized
spray.
All
spray
operations
using
hand
held
spray
guns
must
use
the
appropriate
mechanical
atomized
or
mechanical
nonatomized
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
equation.
Automated
or
robotic
spray
systems
using
nonatomized
spray
should
use
the
appropriate
nonatomized
mechanical
resin
application
equation.
5
Applies
only
to
filament
application
using
an
open
resin
bath.
If
resin
is
applied
manually
or
with
a
spray
gun,
use
the
appropriate
manual
or
mechanical
application
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
equation.
6
Do
not
use
this
equation
for
determining
compliance
with
emission
limits
in
Tables
3
or
5
to
this
subpart.
To
determine
compliance
with
emission
limits
you
must
treat
all
gel
coat
as
if
it
were
applied
as
part
of
your
gel
coat
spray
application
operations.
If
you
apply
gel
coat
by
manual
techniques
only,
you
must
treat
the
gel
coat
as
if
it
were
applied
with
atomized
spray
and
use
Equation
1.
f.
to
determine
compliance
with
the
appropriate
emission
limits
in
Tables
3
or
5
to
this
subpart.
To
estimate
emissions
from
manually
applied
gel
coat,
you
may
either
include
the
gel
coat
quantities
you
apply
manually
with
the
quantities
applied
using
spray,
or
use
this
equation
to
estimate
emissions
from
the
manually
applied
portion
of
your
gel
coat.
7
These
equations
are
for
centrifugal
casting
operations
where
the
mold
is
vented
during
spinning.
Centrifugal
casting
operations
where
the
mold
is
completely
sealed
after
resin
injection
are
considered
to
be
closed
molding
operations.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00098
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19419
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
8
If
a
centrifugal
casting
operation
uses
mechanical
or
manual
resin
application
techniques
to
apply
resin
to
an
open
centrifugal
casting
mold,
use
the
appropriate
open
molding
equation
with
covered
cure
and
no
rollout
to
determine
an
emission
factor
for
operations
prior
to
the
closing
of
the
centrifugal
casting
mold.
If
the
closed
centrifugal
casting
mold
is
vented
during
spinning,
use
the
appropriate
centrifugal
casting
equation
to
calculate
an
emission
factor
for
the
portion
of
the
process
where
spinning
and
cure
occur.
If
a
centrifugal
casting
operation
uses
mechanical
or
manual
resin
application
techniques
to
apply
resin
to
an
open
centrifugal
casting
mold,
and
the
mold
is
then
closed
and
is
not
vented,
treat
the
entire
operation
as
open
molding
with
covered
cure
and
no
rollout
to
determine
emission
factors.

TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
COMPLIANCE
DATES
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
REINFORCED
PLASTIC
COMPOSITES
FACILITIES
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5800
and
63.5840
you
must
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards
by
the
dates
in
the
following
table:]

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

1.
An
existing
source
..........................................
a.
Is
a
major
source
on
or
before
the
publication
date
of
this
subpart.
i.
April
21,
2006,
or
ii.
You
must
accept
and
meet
an
enforceable
HAP
emissions
limit
below
the
major
source
threshold
prior
to
April
21,
2006.
2.
An
existing
source
that
is
an
area
source
.....
Becomes
a
major
source
after
the
publication
date
of
this
subpart.
3
years
after
becoming
a
major
source
or
April
21,
2006,
whichever
is
later.
3.
An
existing
source,
and
emits
less
than
100
tpy
of
organic
HAP
from
the
combination
of
all
centrifugal
casting
and
continuous
lamination
casting
operations
at
the
time
of
initial
compliance
with
this
subpart.
Subsequently
increases
its
actual
organic
HAP
emissions
to
100
tpy
or
more
from
these
operations,
which
requires
that
the
facility
must
now
comply
with
the
standards
in
§
63.5805(
b).
3
years
of
the
date
your
semi­
annual
compliance
report
indicates
your
facility
meets
or
exceeds
the
100
tpy
threshold.

4.
A
new
source
.................................................
Is
a
major
source
at
startup
.............................
Upon
startup
or
April
21,
2003,
whichever
is
later.
5.
A
new
source
.................................................
Is
an
area
source
at
startup
and
becomes
a
major
source.
Immediately
upon
becoming
a
major
source.

6.
A
new
source,
and
emits
less
than
100
tpy
of
organic
HAP
from
the
combination
of
all
open
molding,
centrifugal
casting,
continuous
lamination/
casting,
pultrusion,
SMC
and
BMC
manufacturing,
and
mixing
operations
at
the
time
of
initial
compliance
with
this
subpart.
Subsequently
increases
its
actual
organic
HAP
emissions
to
100
tpy
or
more
from
the
combination
of
these
operations,
which
requires
that
the
facility
must
now
meet
the
standards
in
§
63.5805(
d).
3
years
from
the
date
that
your
semi­
annual
compliance
report
indicates
your
facility
meets
or
exceeds
the
100
tpy
threshold.

TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
FOR
EXISTING
OPEN
MOLDING
SOURCES,
NEW
OPEN
MOLDING
SOURCES
EMITTING
LESS
THAN
100
TPY
OF
HAP,
AND
NEW
AND
EXISTING
CENTRIFUGAL
CASTING
AND
CONTINUOUS
LAMINATION/
CASTING
SOURCES
THAT
EMIT
LESS
THAN
100
TPY
OF
HAP
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5796,
63.5805
(
a)
through
(
c)
and
(
g),
63.5810(
a),
(
b),
and
(
d),
63.5820(
c),
63.5830,
63.5835(
a),
63.5895(
c)
and
(
d),
63.5900(
a)(
2),
and
63.5915(
c),
you
must
meet
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
the
following
table:]

If
your
operation
type
is
.
.
.
And
you
use
.
.
.
Your
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
is
1
.
.
.
And
the
highest
organic
HAP
content
for
a
compliant
resin
or
gel
coat
is
2
.
.
.

1.
Open
molding
 
corrosion­
resistant
and/
or
high
strength
(
CR/
HS).
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....
112
lb/
ton
......................................
46.2
with
nonatomized
resin
application

b.
Filament
application
.................
171
lb/
ton
......................................
42.0.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........
123
lb/
ton
......................................
40.0.
2.
Open
molding
 
non­
CR/
HS
......
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....
87
lb/
ton
........................................
38.4
with
nonatomized
resin
application
b.
Filament
application
.................
188
lb/
ton
......................................
45.0.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........
87
lb/
ton
........................................
33.6.
3.
Open
molding
 
tooling
..............
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....
254
lb/
ton
......................................
43.0
with
atomized
application,
91.4
with
nonatomized
application
b.
Manual
resin
application
..........
157
lb/
ton
......................................
45.9.
4.
Open
molding
 
low­
flame
spread/
low­
smoke
products.
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....
497
lb/
ton
......................................
60.0.

b.
Filament
application
.................
270
lb/
ton
......................................
60.0.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........
238
lb/
ton
......................................
60.0.
5.
Open
molding
 
shrinkage
controlled
resins.
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....
354
lb/
ton
......................................
50.0.

b.
Filament
application
.................
215
lb/
ton
......................................
50.0.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........
180
lb/
ton
......................................
50.0.
6.
Open
molding
 
gel
coat
3
..........
a.
Tooling
gel
coating
...................
437
lb/
ton
......................................
40.0.
b.
White/
off
white
pigmented
gel
coating.
267
lb/
ton
......................................
30.0.

c.
All
other
pigmented
gel
coating
377
lb/
ton
......................................
37.0.
d.
CR/
HS
or
high
performance
gel
coat.
605
lb/
ton
......................................
48.0.

e.
Fire
retardant
gel
coat
..............
854
lb/
ton
......................................
60.0.
f.
Clear
production
gel
coat
..........
522
lb/
ton
......................................
44.0.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
21
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00099
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19420
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
3
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
FOR
EXISTING
OPEN
MOLDING
SOURCES,
NEW
OPEN
MOLDING
SOURCES
EMITTING
LESS
THAN
100
TPY
OF
HAP,
AND
NEW
AND
EXISTING
CENTRIFUGAL
CASTING
AND
CONTINUOUS
LAMINATION/
CASTING
SOURCES
THAT
EMIT
LESS
THAN
100
TPY
OF
HAP
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5796,
63.5805
(
a)
through
(
c)
and
(
g),
63.5810(
a),
(
b),
and
(
d),
63.5820(
c),
63.5830,
63.5835(
a),
63.5895(
c)
and
(
d),
63.5900(
a)(
2),
and
63.5915(
c),
you
must
meet
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
the
following
table:]

If
your
operation
type
is
.
.
.
And
you
use
.
.
.
Your
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
is
1
.
.
.
And
the
highest
organic
HAP
content
for
a
compliant
resin
or
gel
coat
is
2
.
.
.

7.
Centrifugal
casting
 
CR/
HS4
5
..
N/
A
................................................
25
lb/
ton
........................................
48.0.
8.
Centrifugal
casting
 
non­
CR/
HS4
5.
N/
A
................................................
20
lb/
ton
........................................
37.5.

9.
Pultrusion
6
.................................
N/
A
................................................
Reduce
total
organic
HAP
emissions
by
at
least
60
weight
percent
NA.

10.
Continuous
lamination/
casting
N/
A
................................................
Reduce
total
organic
HAP
emissions
by
at
least
58.5
weight
percent
or
not
exceed
a
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
of
15.7
lbs
of
organic
HAP
per
ton
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus.
NA.

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

TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5805
(
a)
through
(
d)
and
(
g),
63.5835(
a),
63.5900(
a)(
3),
63.5910(
c)(
5),
and
63.5915(
d),
you
must
meet
the
appropriate
work
practice
standards
in
the
following
table:]

For
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.

1.
A
new
or
existing
closed
molding
operation
using
compression/
injection
molding.
Uncover,
unwrap
or
expose
only
one
charge
per
mold
cycle
per
compression/
injection
molding
machine.
For
machines
with
multiple
molds,
one
charge
means
sufficient
material
to
fill
all
molds
for
one
cycle.
For
machines
with
robotic
loaders,
no
more
than
one
charge
may
be
exposed
prior
to
the
loader.
For
machines
fed
by
hoppers,
sufficient
material
may
be
uncovered
to
fill
the
hopper.
Hoppers
must
be
closed
when
not
adding
materials.
Materials
may
be
uncovered
to
feed
to
slitting
machines.
Materials
must
be
recovered
after
slitting.
2.
A
new
or
existing
cleaning
operation
.............
Not
use
cleaning
solvents
that
contain
HAP,
except
that
styrene
may
be
used
as
a
cleaner
in
closed
systems,
and
organic
HAP
containing
cleaners
may
be
used
to
clean
cured
resin
from
application
equipment.
Application
equipment
includes
any
equipment
that
directly
contacts
resin.
3.
A
new
or
existing
materials
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
operation.
Keep
containers
that
store
HAP­
containing
materials
closed
or
covered
except
during
the
addition
or
removal
of
materials.
Bulk
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
tanks
may
be
vented
as
necessary
for
safety.
4.
An
existing
or
new
SMC
manufacturing
operation
Close
or
cover
the
resin
delivery
system
to
the
doctor
box
on
each
SMC
manufacturing
machine
The
doctor
box
itself
may
be
open.
5.
An
existing
or
new
SMC
manufacturing
operation.
Use
a
nylon
containing
film
to
enclose
SMC.

6.
An
existing
or
new
mixing
or
BMC
manufacturing
operation.
Use
mixer
covers
with
no
visible
gaps
present
in
the
mixer
covers,
except
that
gaps
of
up
to
1
inch
are
permissible
around
mixer
shafts
and
any
required
instrumentation.
7.
An
existing
mixing
or
BMC
manufacturing
operation
Close
any
mixer
vents
when
actual
mixing
is
occurring,
except
that
venting
is
allowed
during
addition
of
materials,
or
as
necessary
prior
to
adding
materials
or
opening
the
cover
for
safety.
8.
A
new
or
existing
mixing
or
BMC
manufacturing
operation
1.
Keep
the
mixer
covers
closed
while
actual
mixing
is
occurring
except
when
adding
materials
or
changing
covers
to
the
mixing
vessels.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00100
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19421
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
4
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5805
(
a)
through
(
d)
and
(
g),
63.5835(
a),
63.5900(
a)(
3),
63.5910(
c)(
5),
and
63.5915(
d),
you
must
meet
the
appropriate
work
practice
standards
in
the
following
table:]

For
.
.
.
You
must
.
.
.

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

1
Containers
of
5
gallons
or
less
may
be
open
when
active
mixing
is
taking
place,
or
during
periods
when
they
are
in
process
(
i.
e.,
they
are
actively
being
used
to
apply
resin).
For
polymer
casting
mixing
operations,
containers
with
a
surface
area
of
500
square
inches
or
less
may
be
open
while
active
mixing
is
taking
place.

TABLE
5
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
ALTERNATIVE
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
FOR
OPEN
MOLDING,
CENTRIFUGAL
CASTING,
AND
SMC
MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS
WHERE
THE
STANDARD
IS
BASED
ON
A
95
PERCENT
REDUCTION
REQUIREMENT
[
As
specified
in
§
§
63.5796,
63.5805(
b)
and
(
d),
63.5810(
a)
and
(
b),
63.5835(
a),
63.5895(
c),
63.5900(
a)(
2),
and
63.5915(
c),
as
an
alternative
to
the
95
percent
organic
HAP
emissions
reductions
requirement,
you
may
meet
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
in
the
following
table:]

If
your
operation
type
is
.
.
.
And
you
use
.
.
.
LYour
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
is
a
1.
.
.

1.
Open
molding
 
corrosion­
resistant
and/
or
high
strength
(
CR/
HS).
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....................................................
6
lb/
ton.

b.
Filament
application
.................................................................
9
lb/
ton.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........................................................
7
lb/
ton.
2.
Open
molding
 
non­
CR/
HS
.....................................................
a.
mechanical
resin
application
....................................................
13
lb/
ton.
b.
Filament
application
.................................................................
10
lb/
ton.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........................................................
5
lb/
ton.
3.
Open
molding
 
tooling
.............................................................
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....................................................
13
lb/
ton.
b.
Manual
resin
application
..........................................................
8
lb/
ton.
4.
Open
molding
 
low
flame
spread/
low
smoke
products
...........
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....................................................
25
lb/
ton.
b.
Filament
application
.................................................................
14
lb/
ton.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........................................................
12
lb/
ton.
5.
Open
molding
 
shrinkage
controlled
resins
............................
a.
Mechanical
resin
application
....................................................
18
lb/
ton.
b.
Filament
application
.................................................................
11
lb/
ton.
c.
Manual
resin
application
...........................................................
9
lb/
ton.
6.
Open
molding
 
gel
coat
2
.........................................................
a.
Tooling
gel
coating
...................................................................
22
lb/
ton.
b.
White/
off
white
pigmented
gel
coating
.....................................
22
lb/
ton.
c.
All
other
pigmented
gel
coating
................................................
19
lb/
ton.
d.
CR/
HS
or
high
performance
gel
coat
.......................................
31
lb/
ton.
e.
Fire
retardant
gel
coat
..............................................................
43
lb/
ton.
f.
Clear
production
gel
coat
..........................................................
27
lb/
ton.
7.
Centrifugal
casting
 
CR/
HS
3
4
.................................................
A
vent
system
that
moves
heated
air
through
the
mold
..............
27
lb/
ton.
8.
Centrifugal
casting
 
non­
CR/
HS
3
4
..........................................
A
vent
system
that
moves
heated
air
through
the
mold
..............
21
lb/
ton.
7.
Centrifugal
casting
 
CR/
HS
3
4
.................................................
A
vent
system
that
moves
ambient
air
through
the
mold
............
2
lb/
ton.
8.
Centrifugal
casting
 
non­
CR/
HS
3
4
..........................................
A
vent
system
that
moves
ambient
air
through
the
mold
............
1
lb/
ton.
9.
SMC
Manufacturing
..................................................................
N/
A
................................................................................................
2.4
lb/
ton.

1
Organic
HAP
emissions
limits
for
open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
expressed
as
lb/
ton
are
calculated
using
the
equations
shown
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
You
must
be
at
or
below
these
values
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average.
2
These
limits
are
for
spray
application
of
gel
coat.
Manual
gel
coat
application
must
be
included
as
part
of
spray
gel
coat
application
for
compliance
purposes
using
the
same
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
equation
and
organic
HAP
emissions
limit.
If
you
only
apply
gel
coat
with
manual
application,
treat
the
manually
applied
gel
coat
as
if
it
were
applied
with
atomized
spray
for
compliance
determinations.
3
Centrifugal
casting
operations
where
the
mold
is
not
vented
during
spinning
and
cure
are
considered
to
be
closed
molding
and
are
not
subject
to
any
emissions
limit.
Centrifugal
casting
operations
where
the
mold
is
not
vented
during
spinning
and
cure,
and
the
resin
is
applied
to
the
open
centrifugal
casting
mold
using
mechanical
or
manual
open
molding
resin
application
techniques
are
considered
to
be
open
molding
operations
and
the
appropriate
open
molding
emission
limits
apply.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00101
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19422
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
4
Centrifugal
casting
operations
where
the
mold
is
vented
during
spinning
and
the
resin
is
applied
to
the
open
centrifugal
casting
mold
using
mechanical
or
manual
open
molding
resin
application
techniques,
use
the
appropriate
centrifugal
casting
emission
limit
to
determine
compliance.
Calculate
your
emission
factor
using
the
appropriate
centrifugal
casting
emission
factor
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
or
a
site
specific
emission
factor
as
discussed
in
§
63.5796.

TABLE
6
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
 
BASIC
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
PERFORMANCE
TESTS,
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS,
AND
DESIGN
EVALUATIONS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
SOURCES
USING
ADD­
ON
CONTROL
DEVICES
[
As
required
in
§
63.5850
you
must
conduct
performance
tests,
performance
evaluations,
and
design
evaluation
according
to
the
requirements
in
the
following
table:]

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

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

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00102
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19423
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
7
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
OPTIONS
ALLOWING
USE
OF
THE
SAME
RESIN
ACROSS
DIFFERENT
OPERATIONS
THAT
USE
THE
SAME
RESIN
TYPE
[
As
required
in
§
§
63.5810(
a)
through
(
d),
63.5835(
a),
63.5895(
c),
and
63.5900(
a)(
2),
when
electing
to
use
the
same
resin(
s)
for
multiple
resin
application
methods
you
may
use
any
resin(
s)
with
an
organic
HAP
contents
less
than
or
equal
to
the
values
shown
in
the
following
table,
or
any
combination
of
resins
whose
weighted
average
organic
HAP
content
based
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average
is
less
than
or
equal
to
the
values
shown
the
following
table:]

If
your
facility
has
the
following
resin
type
and
application
method
.
.
.
The
highest
resin
weight
percent
organic
HAP
content,
or
weighted
average
weight
percent
organic
HAP
content,
you
can
use
for
.
.
.
Is
.
.
.

1.
CR/
HS
resins,
centrifugal
casting
..........................................
a.
CR/
HS
mechanical
.................................................................
48.0
b.
CR/
HS
filament
application
....................................................
48.0
c.
CR/
HS
manual
........................................................................
48.0
2.
CR/
HS
resins,
nonatomized
mechanical
...............................
a.
CR/
HS
filament
application
....................................................
b.
CR/
HS
manual
.......................................................................
46.2
46.2
3.
CR/
HS
resins,
filament
application
........................................
CR/
HS
manual
............................................................................
42.0
4.
Non­
CR/
HS
resins,
filament
application
.................................
a.
non­
CR/
HS
mechanical
..........................................................
b.
non­
CR/
HS
manual
................................................................
c.
non­
CR/
HS
centrifugal
casting
...............................................
45.0
45.0
45.0
5.
Non­
CR/
HS
resins,
nonatomized
mechanical
........................
a.
Non­
CR/
HS
manual
................................................................
b.
non­
CR/
HS
centrifugal
casting
...............................................
38.4
38.4
6.
Non­
CR/
HS
resins,
centrifugal
casting
..................................
Non­
CR/
HS
manual
....................................................................
37.5
7.
Tooling
resins,
nonatomized
mechanical
...............................
Tooling
manual
...........................................................................
91.4
8.
Tooling
resins,
manual
...........................................................
Tooling
atomized
mechanical
.....................................................
45.9
TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5860(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
as
specified
in
the
following
table:]

For
.
.
.
That
must
meet
the
following
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

1.
Open
molding
and
centrifugal
casting
operations
a.
An
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
shown
in
Tables
3
or
5
to
this
subpart,
or
an
organic
HAP
content
limit
shown
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart.
i.
You
have
met
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
for
these
operations
as
calculated
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.5810
on
a
12­
month
rolling
average
1
year
after
the
appropriate
compliance
date,
or
ii.
You
demonstrate
by
using
the
appropriate
values
in
Tables
3,
or
7
to
this
subpart
that
all
resins
and
gel
coats
considered
individually
meet
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
contents,
or
iii.
You
demonstrate
by
using
the
appropriate
values
in
Table
7
to
this
subpart
that
the
weighted
average
of
all
resins
and
gel
coats
for
each
resin
type
and
application
method
meet
the
appropriate
organic
HAP
contents.
2.
Open
molding,
centrifugal
casting,
continuous
lamination/
casting,
SMC
and
BMC
manufacturing
and
mixing
operations.
a.
Reduce
total
organic
HAP
emissions,
by
at
least
95
percent
by
weight.
Total
organic
HAP
emissions,
based
on
the
results
of
the
capture
efficiency
and
destruction
efficiency
testing
specified
in
Table
6
to
this
subpart,
are
reduced
by
at
least
95
percent
by
weight.
3.
Continuous
lamination/
casting
operations
.....
a.
Reduce
total
organic
HAP
emissions
by
at
least
58.5
weight
percent,
or.
Total
organic
HAP
emissions,
based
on
the
results
of
the
capture
efficiency
and
destruction
efficiency
testing
specified
in
Table
6
to
this
subpart
and
the
calculation
procedures
specified
in
§
§
63.5865
through
63.5890,
are
reduced
by
at
least
58.5
percent
by
weight.
b.
Not
exceed
an
HAP
emissions
limit
of
15.7
lbs
of
organic
HAP
per
ton
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus.
Total
organic
HAP
emissions,
based
on
the
results
of
the
capture
efficiency
and
destruction
efficiency
testing
specified
in
Table
6
to
this
subpart
and
the
calculation
procedures
specified
in
§
§
63.5865
through
63.5890,
do
not
exceed
15.7
lbs
of
organic
HAP
per
ton
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00103
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19424
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
8
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
LIMITS
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
63.5860(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
organic
HAP
emissions
limits
as
specified
in
the
following
table:]

For
.
.
.
That
must
meet
the
following
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

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

TABLE
9
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5860(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
work
practice
standards
as
specified
in
the
following
table:]

For
.
.
.
That
must
meet
the
following
standard
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

1.
A
new
or
existing
closed
or
molding
operation
using
compression/
injection
molding.
Uncover,
unwrap
or
expose
only
one
charge
per
mold
cycle
per
compression/
injection
molding
machine.
For
machines
with
multiple
molds,
one
charge
means
sufficient
material
to
fill
all
molds
for
one
cycle.
For
machines
with
robotic
loaders,
no
more
than
one
charge
may
be
exposed
prior
to
the
loader.
For
machines
fed
by
hoppers,
sufficient
material
may
be
uncovered
to
fill
the
hopper.
Hoppers
must
be
closed
when
not
adding
materials.
Materials
may
be
uncovered
to
feed
to
slitting
machines.
Materials
must
be
recovered
after
slitting.
The
owner
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
only
one
charge
is
uncovered,
unwrapped
or
exposed
per
mold
cycle
per
compression
injection
molding
machine,
or
prior
to
the
loader,
hoppers
are
closed
except
when
adding
materials,
and
materials
are
recovered
after
slitting.

2.
A
new
or
existing
cleaning
operation
.............
Not
use
cleaning
solvents
that
contain
HAP,
except
that
styrene
may
be
used
in
closed
systems,
and
organic
HAP
containing
materials
may
be
used
to
clean
cured
resin
from
application
equipment.
Application
equipment
includes
any
equipment
that
directly
contacts
resin
between
storage
and
applying
resin
to
the
mold
or
reinforcement.
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
all
cleaning
materials,
except
styrene
contained
in
closed
systems,
or
materials
used
to
clean
cured
resin
from
application
equipment
contain
no
HAP.

3.
A
new
or
existing
materials
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
operation.
Keep
containers
that
store
HAP­
containing
materials
closed
or
covered
except
during
the
addition
or
removal
of
materials.
Bulk
HAP­
containing
materials
storage
tanks
may
be
vented
as
necessary
for
safety.
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
all
HAP­
containing
storage
containers
are
kept
closed
or
covered
except
when
adding
or
removing
materials,
and
that
any
bulk
storage
tanks
are
vented
only
as
necessary
for
safety.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00104
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19425
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
9
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
INITIAL
COMPLIANCE
WITH
WORK
PRACTICE
STANDARDS
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
63.5860(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
work
practice
standards
as
specified
in
the
following
table:]

For
.
.
.
That
must
meet
the
following
standard
.
.
.
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
.
.
.

4.
An
existing
or
new
SMC
manufacturing
operation
Close
or
cover
the
resin
delivery
system
to
the
doctor
box
on
each
SMC
manufacturing
machine.
The
doctor
box
itself
may
be
open.
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
the
resin
delivery
system
is
closed
or
covered.
5.
An
existing
or
new
SMC
manufacturing
operation.
Use
a
nylon
containing
film
to
enclose
SMC.
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
a
nylon­
containing
film
is
used
to
enclose
SMC.
6.
An
existing
or
new
mixing
or
BMC
manufacturing
operation.
Use
mixer
covers
with
no
visible
gaps
present
in
the
mixer
covers,
except
that
gaps
of
up
to
1
inch
are
permissible
around
mixer
shafts
and
any
required
instrumentation.
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
mixer
covers
are
closed
during
mixing
except
when
adding
materials
to
the
mixers
and
that
gaps
around
mixer
shafts
and
required
instrumentation
are
less
than
1
inch.
7.
An
existing
mixing
or
BMC
manufacturing
operation.
Not
actively
vent
mixers
to
the
atmosphere
while
the
mixing
agitator
is
turning,
except
that
venting
is
allowed
during
addition
of
materials,
or
as
necessary
prior
to
adding
materials
for
safety.
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
mixers
are
not
actively
vented
to
the
atmosphere
when
the
agitator
is
turning,
except
when
adding
materials
or
as
necessary
for
safety.
8.
A
new
or
existing
mixing
or
BMC
manufacturing
operation.
Keep
the
mixer
covers
closed
during
mixing
except
when
adding
materials
to
the
mixing
vessels.
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
mixers
closed
except
when
adding
materials
to
the
mixing
vessels.
9.
A
new
or
existing
pultrusion
operation
manufacturing
parts
with
1000
or
more
reinforcements
and
a
cross
section
area
of
60
square
inches
or
more
that
is
not
subject
to
the
95
percent
organic
HAP
emission
reduction
requirement.
i.
Not
allow
vents
from
the
building
ventilation
system,
or
local
or
portable
fans
to
blow
directly
on
or
across
the
wet­
out
area(
s),
ii.
not
permit
point
suction
of
ambient
air
in
the
wet­
out
area(
s)
unless
that
air
is
directed
to
a
control
device,
The
owner
or
operator
submits
a
certified
statement
in
the
notice
of
compliance
status
that
they
have
complied
with
all
the
requirements
listed
in
the
9.
i
through
9.
vii.

iii.
use
devices
such
as
deflectors,
baffles,
and
curtains
when
practical
to
reduce
air
flow
velocity
across
wet­
out
area(
s),
iv.
direct
any
compressed
air
exhausts
away
from
resin
and
wet­
out
area(
s),
v.
convey
resin
collected
from
drip­
off
pans
or
other
devices
to
reservoirs,
tanks,
or
sumps
via
covered
troughs,
pipes,
or
other
covered
conveyance
that
shields
the
resin
from
the
ambient
air,
vi.
cover
all
reservoirs,
tanks,
sumps,
or
HAPcontaining
materials
storage
vessels
except
when
they
are
being
charged
or
filled,
and
vii.
cover
or
shield
from
ambient
air
resin
delivery
systems
to
the
wet­
out
area(
s)
from
reservoirs,
tanks,
or
sumps
where
practical.

TABLE
10
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
CONTINUOUS
LAMINATION
LINES
AND
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
LINES
COMPLYING
WITH
A
PERCENT
REDUCTION
LIMIT
ON
A
PER
LINE
BASIS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5865(
a),
in
order
to
comply
with
a
percent
reduction
limit
for
continuous
lamination
lines
and
continuous
casting
lines
you
must
determine
the
data
in
the
following
table:]

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

1.
Has
an
enclosure
that
is
not
a
permanent
total
enclosure
(
PTE)
and
the
captured
organic
HAP
emissions
are
controlled
by
an
add­
on
control
device.
a.
Is
uncontrolled
.............................................
i.
Annual
uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
ii.
Annual
controlled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
iii.
Annual
uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions,
iv.
The
capture
efficiency
of
the
wet­
out
area
enclosure,
v.
The
destruction
efficiency
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
and
vi.
The
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
applied.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00105
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19426
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
63.5865(
a),
in
order
to
comply
with
a
percent
reduction
limit
for
continuous
lamination
lines
and
continuous
casting
lines
you
must
determine
the
data
in
the
following
table:]

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

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

TABLE
11
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
CONTINUOUS
LAMINATION
AND
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
LINES
COMPLYING
WITH
A
PERCENT
REDUCTION
LIMIT
OR
A
LBS/
TON
LIMIT
ON
AN
AVERAGING
BASIS
[
As
required
in
§
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:]

For
each
.
.
.
That
.
.
.
You
must
determine
.
.
.

1.
Wet­
out
area
..................................................
Is
uncontrolled
..................................................
Annual
uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions.
2.
Wet­
out
area
..................................................
a.
Has
an
enclosure
that
is
not
a
PTE
............
i.
The
capture
efficiency
of
the
enclosure,
and
ii.
Annual
organic
HAP
emissions
that
escape
the
enclosure.
3.
Wet­
out
area
..................................................
Has
an
enclosure
that
is
a
PTE
......................
That
the
enclosure
meets
the
requirements
of
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
for
a
PTE.
4.
Oven
...............................................................
Is
uncontrolled
..................................................
Annual
uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00106
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19427
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
11
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
CONTINUOUS
LAMINATION
AND
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
LINES
COMPLYING
WITH
A
PERCENT
REDUCTION
LIMIT
OR
A
LBS/
TON
LIMIT
ON
AN
AVERAGING
BASIS
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
63.5865,
in
order
to
comply
with
a
percent
reduction
limit
or
a
lbs/
ton
limit
on
an
averaging
basis
for
continuous
lamination
lines
and
continuous
casting
lines
you
must
determine
the
data
in
the
following
table:]

For
each
.
.
.
That
.
.
.
You
must
determine
.
.
.

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

TABLE
12
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
CONTINUOUS
LAMINATION
LINES
AND
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
LINES
COMPLYING
WITH
A
LBS/
TON
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
LIMIT
ON
A
PER
LINE
BASIS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5865(
b),
in
order
to
comply
with
a
lbs/
ton
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
continuous
lamination
lines
and
continuous
casting
lines
you
must
determine
the
data
in
the
following
table:]

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

1.
Is
uncontrolled
................................................
a.
Is
uncontrolled
.............................................
i.
Annual
uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
ii.
Annual
uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions,
and
iii.
Annual
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
applied.
2.
Has
an
enclosure
that
is
not
a
PTE
and
the
captured
organic
HAP
emissions
are
controlled
by
an
add­
on
control
device.
a.
Is
uncontrolled
.............................................
i.
Annual
uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
ii.
Annual
controlled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
iii.
Annual
uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions,
iv.
The
capture
efficiency
of
the
wet­
out
area
enclosure,
v.
The
destruction
efficiency
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
and
vi.
The
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
applied.
3.
Has
an
enclosure
that
is
a
PTE,
and
the
captured
organic
HAP
emissions
are
controlled
by
an
add­
on
control
device.
a.
Is
uncontrolled
.............................................
i.
Annual
uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
ii.
Annual
controlled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
iii.
Annual
uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions,
iv.
That
the
wet­
out
area
enclosure
meets
the
requirements
of
EPA
Method
204
of
appendix
M
to
40
CFR
part
51
for
a
PTE,
v.
The
destruction
efficiency
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
and
vi.
The
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
applied.
4.
Is
uncontrolled
................................................
a.
Is
controlled
by
an
add­
on
control
device
...
i.
Annual
uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
ii.
Annual
uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions,
iii.
Annual
controlled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions
iv.
The
capture
efficiency
of
the
oven,
v.
The
destruction
efficiency
of
the
add­
on
control
device,
and
vi.
The
amount
of
neat
resin
plus
and
neat
gel
coat
plus
applied.
5.
Has
an
enclosure
that
is
not
a
PTE
and
the
captured
organic
HAP
emissions
are
controlled
by
an
add­
on
control
device.
a.
Is
controlled
by
an
add­
on
control
device
...
i.
Annual
uncontrolled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
ii.
Annual
controlled
wet­
out
area
organic
HAP
emissions,
iii.
Annual
uncontrolled
oven
organic
HAP
emissions,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00107
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19428
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
12
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
CONTINUOUS
LAMINATION
LINES
AND
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
LINES
COMPLYING
WITH
A
LBS/
TON
ORGANIC
HAP
EMISSIONS
LIMIT
ON
A
PER
LINE
BASIS
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
63.5865(
b),
in
order
to
comply
with
a
lbs/
ton
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
for
continuous
lamination
lines
and
continuous
casting
lines
you
must
determine
the
data
in
the
following
table:]

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

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

TABLE
13
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
AND
TIMING
OF
NOTIFICATIONS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5905(
a),
you
must
determine
the
applicable
notifications
and
submit
them
by
the
dates
shown
in
the
following
table:]

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

1.
Is
an
existing
source
subject
to
this
subpart
An
Initial
Notification
containing
the
information
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
2).
No
later
than
the
dates
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
2).
2.
Is
a
new
source
subject
to
this
subpart
.........
The
notifications
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
4)
and
(
5).
No
later
than
the
dates
specified
§
63.9(
b)(
4)
and
(
5).
3.
Qualifies
for
a
compliance
extension
as
specified
in
§
63.9(
c).
A
request
for
a
compliance
extension
as
specified
in
§
63.9(
c).
No
later
than
the
dates
specified
in
§
63.6(
i).

4.
Is
complying
with
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
averaging
provisions.
A
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
as
specified
in
§
63.9(
h).
No
later
than
1
year
plus
30
days
after
your
facility's
compliance
date.
5.
Is
complying
with
organic
HAP
content
limits,
application
equipment
requirements,
or
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
other
than
organic
HAP
emissions
limit
averaging.
A
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
as
specified
in
§
63.9(
h).
No
later
than
30
calendar
days
after
your
facility's
compliance
date.

6.
Is
complying
by
using
an
add­
on
control
device
a.
A
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
as
specified
in
§
63.9(
e).
No
later
than
the
date
specified
in
§
63.9(
e).

b.
A
notification
of
the
date
for
the
CMS
performance
evaluation
as
specified
in
§
63.9(
g).
The
date
of
submission
of
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test.

c.
A
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
as
specified
in
§
63.9(
h).
No
later
than
60
calendar
days
after
the
completion
of
the
add­
on
control
device
performance
test
and
CMS
performance
evaluation.

TABLE
14
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
REPORTS
[
As
required
in
§
63.5910(
a),
(
b),
(
g),
and
(
h),
you
must
submit
reports
on
the
schedule
shown
in
the
following
table:]

You
must
submit
a(
n)
The
report
must
contain
.
.
.
You
must
submit
the
report
.
.
.

1.
Compliance
report
.......................
a.
A
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
during
that
reporting
period
if
there
were
no
deviations
from
any
emission
limitations
(
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
opacity
limit,
and
visible
emission
limit)
that
apply
to
you
and
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
requirements
for
work
practice
standards
in
Table
4
to
this
subpart
that
apply
to
you.
If
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
CMS,
including
CEMS,
and
operating
parameter
monitoring
systems,
was
out
of
control
as
specified
in
§
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.
Semiannually
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.5910(
b).

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00108
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19429
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
14
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
REPORTS
 
Continued
[
As
required
in
§
63.5910(
a),
(
b),
(
g),
and
(
h),
you
must
submit
reports
on
the
schedule
shown
in
the
following
table:]

You
must
submit
a(
n)
The
report
must
contain
.
.
.
You
must
submit
the
report
.
.
.

b.
The
information
in
§
63.5910(
d)
if
you
have
a
deviation
from
any
emission
limitation
(
emission
limit,
operating
limit,
or
work
practice
standard)
during
the
reporting
period.
If
there
were
periods
during
which
the
CMS,
including
CEMS,
and
operating
parameter
monitoring
systems,
was
out
of
control,
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
the
report
must
contain
the
information
in
§
63.5910(
e).
Semiannually
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.5910(
b).

c.
The
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i)
if
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period,
and
you
took
actions
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
Semiannually
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.5910(
b).

2.
An
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
if
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
that
is
not
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
a.
Actions
taken
for
the
event
...............................................................
By
fax
or
telephone
within
2
working
days
after
starting
actions
inconsistent
with
the
plan.

b.
The
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)
....................................................
By
letter
within
7
working
days
after
the
end
of
the
event
unless
you
have
made
alternative
arrangements
with
the
permitting
authority.
(
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)).

TABLE
15
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
(
SUBPART
A)
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
[
As
specified
in
§
63.5925,
the
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
which
apply
to
you
are
shown
in
the
following
table:]

The
general
provisions
reference
.
.
.
That
addresses
.
.
.
And
applies
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
.
.
.
Subject
to
the
following
additional
information
.
.
.

§
63.1(
a)(
1)
..........................
General
applicability
of
the
general
provisions
Yes
.....................................
Additional
terms
defined
in
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63,
when
overlap
between
subparts
A
and
WWWW
of
Part
63
of
this
part,
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
takes
precedence.
§
63.1(
a)(
2)
through
(
4)
.......
General
applicability
of
the
general
provisions
Yes.

§
63.1(
a)(
5)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.1(
a)(
6)
..........................
General
applicability
of
the
general
provisions
Yes.

§
63.1(
a)(
7)
through
(
9)
.......
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.1(
a)(
10)
through
(
14)
...
General
applicability
of
the
general
provisions
Yes.

§
63.1(
b)(
1)
..........................
Initial
applicability
determination
..............
Yes
.....................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
clarifies
the
applicability
in
§
§
63.5780
and
63.5785.
§
63.1(
b)(
2)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No..
§
63.1(
b)(
3)
..........................
Record
of
the
applicability
determination
Yes.
§
63.1(
c)(
1)
..........................
Applicability
of
this
part
after
a
relevant
standard
has
been
set
under
this
part.
Yes
.....................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
clarifies
the
applicability
of
each
paragraph
of
subpart
A
to
sources
subject
to
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.1(
c)(
2)
..........................
Title
V
operating
permit
requirement
.......
Yes
.....................................
All
major
affected
sources
are
required
to
obtain
a
title
V
operating
permit.
Area
sources
are
not
subject
to
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.1(
c)(
3)
and
(
4)
.............
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.1(
c)(
5)
..........................
Notification
requirements
for
an
area
source
that
increases
HAP
emissions
to
major
source
levels.
Yes.

§
63.1(
d)
..............................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.1(
e)
..............................
Applicability
of
permit
program
before
a
relevant
standard
has
been
set
under
this
part.
Yes.

§
63.2
..................................
Definitions
................................................
Yes
.....................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
defines
terms
in
§
63.5935.
When
overlap
between
subparts
A
and
WWWW
of
Part
63
occurs,
you
must
comply
with
the
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
definitions,
which
take
precedence
over
the
subpart
A
definitions.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00109
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19430
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
15
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
(
SUBPART
A)
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
[
As
specified
in
§
63.5925,
the
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
which
apply
to
you
are
shown
in
the
following
table:]

The
general
provisions
reference
.
.
.
That
addresses
.
.
.
And
applies
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
.
.
.
Subject
to
the
following
additional
information
.
.
.

§
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.
§
63.4
..................................
Prohibited
activities
and
circumvention
...
Yes
.....................................
§
63.4(
a)(
3)
through
(
5)
is
reserved
and
does
not
apply.
§
63.5(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
.............
Applicability
of
construction
and
reconstruction
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.5(
b)(
1)
..........................
Relevant
standards
for
new
sources
upon
construction.
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.5(
b)(
2)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.5(
b)(
3)
..........................
New
construction/
reconstruction
..............
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.5(
b)(
4)
..........................
Construction/
reconstruction
notification
...
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.5(
b)(
5)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.5(
b)(
6)
..........................
Equipment
addition
or
process
change
...
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.5(
c)
..............................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.5(
d)(
1)
..........................
General
application
for
approval
of
construction
or
reconstruction.
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.
§
63.5(
d)(
2)
..........................
Application
for
approval
of
construction
..
Yes.
§
63.5(
d)(
3)
..........................
Application
for
approval
of
reconstruction
No.
§
63.5(
d)(
4)
..........................
Additional
information
..............................
Yes.
§
63.5(
e)(
1)
through
(
5)
.......
Approval
of
construction
or
reconstruction
Yes.

§
63.5(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
..............
Approval
of
construction
or
reconstruction
based
on
prior
State
preconstruction
review.
Yes.

§
63.6(
a)(
1)
..........................
Applicability
of
compliance
with
standards
and
maintenance
requirements.
Yes.

§
63.6(
a)(
2)
..........................
Applicability
of
area
sources
that
increase
HAP
emissions
to
become
major
sources.
Yes.

§
63.6(
b)(
1)
through
(
5)
.......
Compliance
dates
for
new
and
reconstructed
sources.
Yes
.....................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
clarifies
compliance
dates
in
§
63.5800.
§
63.6(
b)(
6)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.6(
b)(
7)
..........................
Compliance
dates
for
new
operations
or
equipment
that
cause
an
area
source
to
become
a
major
source.
Yes
.....................................
New
operations
at
an
existing
facility
are
not
subject
to
new
source
standards.

§
63.6(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
.............
Compliance
dates
for
existing
sources
...
Yes
.....................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
clarifies
compliance
dates
in
§
63.5800.
§
63.6(
c)(
3)
and
(
4)
.............
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.6(
c)(
5)
..........................
Compliance
dates
for
existing
area
sources
that
become
major.
Yes
.....................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
clarifies
compliance
dates
in
§
63.5800.
§
63.6(
d)
..............................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.6(
e)(
1)
and
(
2)
.............
Operation
&
maintenance
requirements
..
Yes.
§
63.6(
e)(
3)
..........................
Startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
and
recordkeeping.
Yes
.....................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
requires
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
only
for
sources
using
add­
on
controls.
§
63.6(
f)(
1)
...........................
Compliance
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
requires
compliance
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction,
except
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunctions
for
sources
using
add­
on
controls.
§
63.6(
f)(
2)
and
(
3)
..............
Methods
for
determining
compliance
......
Yes.
§
63.6(
g)(
1)
through
(
3)
.......
Alternative
standard
.................................
Yes.
§
63.6(
h)
..............................
Opacity
and
visible
emission
Standards
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
does
not
contain
opacity
or
visible
emission
standards.
.
§
63.6(
i)(
1)
through
(
14)
......
Compliance
extensions
............................
Yes.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00110
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19431
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
15
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
(
SUBPART
A)
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
[
As
specified
in
§
63.5925,
the
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
which
apply
to
you
are
shown
in
the
following
table:]

The
general
provisions
reference
.
.
.
That
addresses
.
.
.
And
applies
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
.
.
.
Subject
to
the
following
additional
information
.
.
.

§
63.6(
i)(
15)
.........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.6(
i)(
16)
.........................
Compliance
extensions
...........................
Yes.
§
63.6(
j)
...............................
Presidential
compliance
exemption
.........
Yes.
§
63.7(
a)(
1)
..........................
Applicability
of
performance
testing
requirements
Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
2)
..........................
Performance
test
dates
...........................
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63initial
compliance
requirements
are
in
§
63.5840.
§
63.7(
a)(
3)
..........................
CAA
Section
114
authority
......................
Yes.
§
63.7(
b)(
1)
..........................
Notification
of
performance
test
...............
Yes.
§
63.7(
b)(
2)
..........................
Notification
rescheduled
performance
test.
Yes.

§
63.7(
c)
..............................
Quality
assurance
program,
including
test
plan.
Yes
.....................................
Except
that
the
test
plan
must
be
submitted
with
the
notification
of
the
performance
test.
§
63.7(
d)
..............................
Performance
testing
facilities
...................
Yes.
§
63.7(
e)
..............................
Conditions
for
conducting
performance
tests.
Yes
.....................................
Performance
test
requirements
are
contained
in
§
63.5850.
Additional
requirements
for
conducting
performance
tests
for
continuous
lamination/
casting
are
included
in
§
63.5870.
§
63.7(
f)
...............................
Use
of
alternative
test
method
................
Yes.
§
63.7(
g)
..............................
Performance
test
data
analysis,
recordkeeping
and
reporting.
Yes.

§
63.7(
h)
..............................
Waiver
of
performance
tests
...................
Yes.
§
63.8(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
.............
Applicability
of
monitoring
requirements
..
Yes.
§
63.8(
a)(
3)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.8(
a)(
4)
..........................
Monitoring
requirements
when
using
flares.
Yes.

§
63.8(
b)(
1)
..........................
Conduct
of
monitoring
exceptions
...........
Yes.
§
63.8(
b)(
2)
and
(
3)
.............
Multiple
effluents
and
multiple
monitoring
systems.
Yes.

§
63.8(
c)(
1)
..........................
Compliance
with
CMS
operation
and
maintenance
requirements.
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
c)(
2)
and
(
3)
.............
Monitoring
system
installation
.................
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
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.
§
63.8(
c)(
5)
..........................
Continuous
Opacity
Monitoring
System
(
COMS)
minimum
procedures.
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
does
not
contain
opacity
standards.
§
63.8(
c)(
6)
through
(
8)
.......
CMS
calibration
and
periods
CMS
is
out
of
control.
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
d)
..............................
CMS
quality
control
program,
including
test
plan
and
all
previous
versions.
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
e)(
1)
..........................
Performance
evaluation
of
CMS
.............
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
e)(
2)
..........................
Notification
of
performance
evaluation
....
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
e)(
3)
and
(
4)
.............
CMS
requirements/
alternatives
...............
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
e)(
5)(
i)
......................
Reporting
performance
evaluation
results
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
e)(
5)(
ii)
......................
Results
of
COMS
performance
evaluation
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
does
not
contain
opacity
standards.
§
63.8(
f)(
1)
through
(
3)
........
Use
of
an
alternative
monitoring
method
Yes.
§
63.8(
f)(
4)
...........................
Request
to
use
an
alternative
monitoring
method.
Yes.

§
63.8(
f)(
5)
...........................
Approval
of
request
to
use
an
alternative
monitoring
method.
Yes.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00111
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19432
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
15
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
(
SUBPART
A)
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
[
As
specified
in
§
63.5925,
the
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
which
apply
to
you
are
shown
in
the
following
table:]

The
general
provisions
reference
.
.
.
That
addresses
.
.
.
And
applies
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
.
.
.
Subject
to
the
following
additional
information
.
.
.

§
63.8(
f)(
6)
...........................
Request
for
alternative
to
relative
accuracy
test
and
associated
records.
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.8(
g)(
1)
through
(
5)
.......
Data
reduction
.........................................
Yes.
§
63.9(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
.......
Notification
requirements
and
general
information
Yes.

§
63.9(
b)(
1)
..........................
Initial
notification
applicability
..................
Yes.
§
63.9(
b)(
2)
..........................
Notification
for
affected
source
with
initial
startup
before
effective
date
of
standard
Yes.

§
63.9(
b)(
3)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.9(
b)(
4)(
i)
......................
Notification
for
a
new
or
reconstructed
major
affected
source
with
initial
startup
after
effective
date
for
which
an
application
for
approval
of
construction
or
reconstruction
is
required.
Yes.

§
63.9(
b)(
4)(
ii)
through
(
iv)
..
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.9(
b)(
4)(
v)
.....................
Notification
for
a
new
or
reconstructed
major
affected
source
with
initial
startup
after
effective
date
for
which
an
application
for
approval
of
construction
or
reconstruction
is
required.
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.

§
63.9(
b)(
5)
..........................
Notification
that
you
are
subject
to
this
subpart
for
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
with
initial
startup
after
effective
date
and
for
which
an
application
for
approval
of
construction
or
reconstruction
is
not
required.
Yes
.....................................
Existing
facilities
do
not
become
reconstructed
under
subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63.

§
63.9(
c)
..............................
Request
for
compliance
extension
..........
Yes.
§
63.9(
d)
..............................
Notification
of
special
compliance
requirements
for
new
source.
Yes.

§
63.9(
e)
..............................
Notification
of
performance
test
...............
Yes.
§
63.9(
f)
...............................
Notification
of
opacity
and
visible
emissions
observations.
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
does
not
contain
opacity
or
visible
emission
standards.
§
63.9(
g)(
1)
..........................
Additional
notification
requirements
for
sources
using
CMS.
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.9(
g)(
2)
..........................
Notification
of
compliance
with
opacity
emission
standard.
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
does
not
contain
opacity
emission
standards.
§
63.9(
g)(
3)
..........................
Notification
that
criterion
to
continue
use
of
alternative
to
relative
accuracy
testing
has
been
exceeded.
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.9(
h)(
1)
through
(
3)
.......
Notification
of
compliance
status
.............
Yes.
§
63.9(
h)(
4)
..........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.9(
h)(
5)
and
(
6)
.............
Notification
of
compliance
status
.............
Yes.
§
63.9(
i)
...............................
Adjustment
of
submittal
deadlines
...........
Yes.
§
63.9(
j)
...............................
Change
in
information
provided
..............
Yes.
§
63.10(
a)
............................
Applicability
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
1)
........................
Records
retention
....................................
Yes.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
i)
through
(
v)
..
Records
related
to
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
Yes
.....................................
Only
applies
to
facilities
that
use
an
addon
control
device.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
vi)
through
(
xi)
CMS
records,
data
on
performance
tests,
CMS
performance
evaluations,
measurements
necessary
to
determine
conditions
of
performance
tests,
and
performance
evaluations.
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xii)
..................
Record
of
waiver
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting.
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiii)
.................
Record
for
alternative
to
the
relative
accuracy
test.
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv)
.................
Records
supporting
initial
notification
and
notification
of
compliance
status.
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
3)
........................
Records
for
applicability
determinations
..
Yes.
§
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.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00112
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19433
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
15
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
(
SUBPART
A)
TO
SUBPART
WWWW
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
[
As
specified
in
§
63.5925,
the
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
which
apply
to
you
are
shown
in
the
following
table:]

The
general
provisions
reference
.
.
.
That
addresses
.
.
.
And
applies
to
subpart
WWWW
of
part
63
.
.
.
Subject
to
the
following
additional
information
.
.
.

§
63.10(
c)(
2)
through
(
4)
.....
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
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.
§
63.10(
c)(
9)
........................
Reserved
.................................................
No.
§
63.10(
c)(
10)
through
(
15)
CMS
records
............................................
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
CMS
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.10(
d)(
1)
........................
General
reporting
requirements
...............
Yes.
§
63.10(
d)(
2)
........................
Report
of
performance
test
results
..........
Yes.
§
63.10(
d)(
3)
........................
Reporting
results
of
opacity
or
visible
emission
observations.
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
does
not
contain
opacity
or
visible
emission
standards.
§
63.10(
d)(
4)
........................
Progress
reports
as
part
of
extension
of
compliance.
Yes.

§
63.10(
d)(
5)
........................
Startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
reports
Yes
.....................................
Only
applies
if
you
use
an
add­
on
control
device.
§
63.10(
e)(
1)
through
(
3)
.....
Additional
reporting
requirements
for
CMS.
Yes
.....................................
This
section
applies
if
you
have
an
addon
control
device
and
elect
to
use
a
CEM
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
an
emission
limit.
§
63.10(
e)(
4)
........................
Reporting
COMS
data
.............................
No
......................................
Subpart
WWWW
of
Part
63
does
not
contain
opacity
standards.
§
63.10(
f)
.............................
Waiver
for
recordkeeping
or
reporting
.....
Yes.
§
63.11
................................
Control
device
requirements
....................
Yes
.....................................
Only
applies
if
you
elect
to
use
a
flare
as
a
control
device.
§
63.12
................................
State
authority
and
delegations
...............
Yes.
§
63.13
................................
Addresses
of
State
air
pollution
control
agencies
and
EPA
Regional
Offices.
Yes.

§
63.14
................................
Incorporations
by
reference
.....................
Yes.
§
63.15
................................
Availability
of
information
and
confidentiality
Yes.

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

TABLE
1.1.
 
LIST
OF
MONOMERS
POTENTIALLY
PRESENT
IN
UNSATURATED
POLYESTER/
VINYL
ESTER
RESINS
Monomer
CAS
No.

Styrene
................................
100
 
42
 
5.
Vinyl
toluene
........................
25013
 
15
 
4.
Methyl
methacrylate
............
80
 
62
 
6.
Alpha
methyl
styrene
...........
98
 
83
 
9.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00113
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19434
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
1.1.
 
LIST
OF
MONOMERS
POTENTIALLY
PRESENT
IN
UNSATURATED
POLYESTER/
VINYL
ESTER
RESINS
 
Continued
Monomer
CAS
No.

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

2.
Summary
of
Method
2.1
Differences
in
specific
resin
and
suppressant
additive
chemistry
affect
the
performance
of
a
vapor
suppressant.
The
purpose
of
this
method
is
to
quantify
the
effectiveness
of
a
specific
combination
of
vapor
suppressant
and
unsaturated
polyester
or
vinyl
ester
resin
as
they
are
to
be
used
in
production.
This
comparative
test
quantifies
the
loss
of
volatiles
from
a
fiberglass
reinforced
laminate
during
the
roll­
out
and
curing
emission
phases,
for
resins
formulated
with
and
without
a
suppressant
additive.
A
criterion
for
this
method
is
the
testing
of
a
non­
vapor
suppressed
resin
system
and
testing
the
same
resin
with
a
vapor
suppressant.
The
two
resins
are
as
identical
as
possible
with
the
exception
of
the
addition
of
the
suppressant
to
one.
The
exact
formulation
used
for
the
test
will
be
determined
by
the
in­
use
production
requirements.
Each
formulation
of
resin,
glass,
fillers,
and
additives
is
developed
to
meet
particular
customer
and
or
performance
specifications.
2.2
The
result
of
this
test
is
used
as
an
input
factor
in
the
organic
HAP
emissions
factor
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart,
which
allows
these
equations
to
predict
emissions
from
a
specific
combination
of
resin
and
suppressant.
This
test
does
not
provide
an
emission
rate
for
the
entire
lamination
process.

3.
Definitions
and
Acronyms
3.1
Definitions
3.1.1
Vapor
suppressant.
An
additive
that
inhibits
the
evaporation
of
volatile
components
in
unsaturated
polyester
or
vinyl
ester
resins.
3.1.2
Unsaturated
polyester
resin.
A
thermosetting
resin
commonly
used
in
composites
molding.
3.1.3
Unsaturated
vinyl
ester
resin.
A
thermosetting
resin
used
in
composites
molding
for
corrosion
resistant
and
high
performance
applications.
3.1.4
Laminate.
A
combination
of
fiber
reinforcement
and
a
thermoset
resin.
3.1.5
Chopped
strand
mat.
Glass
fiber
reinforcement
with
random
fiber
orientation.
3.1.6
Initiator.
A
curing
agent
added
to
an
unsaturated
polyester
or
vinyl
ester
resin.
3.1.7
Resin
application
roller.
A
tool
used
to
saturate
and
compact
a
wet
laminate.
3.1.8
Gel
time.
The
time
from
the
addition
of
initiator
to
a
resin
to
the
state
of
resin
gelation.
3.1.9
Filled
resin
system.
A
resin,
which
includes
the
addition
of
inert
organic
or
inorganic
materials
to
modify
the
resin
properties,
extend
the
volume
and
to
lower
the
cost.
Fillers
include,
but
are
not
limited
to;
mineral
particulates;
microspheres;
or
organic
particulates.
This
test
is
not
intended
to
be
used
to
determine
the
vapor
suppressant
effectiveness
of
a
filler.
3.1.10
Material
safety
data
sheet.
Data
supplied
by
the
manufacturer
of
a
chemical
product,
listing
hazardous
chemical
components,
safety
precautions,
and
required
personal
protection
equipment
for
a
specific
product.
3.1.11
Tare(
ed).
Reset
a
balance
to
zero
after
a
container
or
object
is
placed
on
the
balance;
that
is
to
subtract
the
weight
of
a
container
or
object
from
the
balance
reading
so
as
to
weigh
only
the
material
placed
in
the
container
or
on
the
object.
3.1.12
Percent
glass.
The
specified
glass
fiber
weight
content
in
a
laminate.
It
is
usually
determined
by
engineering
requirements
for
the
laminate.
3.2
Acronyms:
3.2.1
VS
 
vapor
suppressed
or
vapor
suppressant.
3.2.2
NVS
 
non­
vapor
suppressed.
3.2.3
VSE
 
vapor
suppressant
effectiveness.
3.2.4
VSE
Factor
 
vapor
suppressant
effectiveness,
factor
used
in
the
equations
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
3.2.5
CSM
 
chopped
strand
mat.
3.2.6
MSDS
 
material
safety
data
sheet.

4.
Interferences
There
are
no
identified
interferences
which
affect
the
results
of
this
test.

5.
Safety
Standard
laboratory
safety
procedures
should
be
used
when
conducting
this
test.
Refer
to
specific
MSDS
for
handling
precautions.

6.
Equipment
and
Supplies
Note:
Mention
of
trade
names
or
specific
products
or
suppliers
does
not
constitute
an
endorsement
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
6.1
Required
Equipment.
6.1.1
Balance
enclosure.
1
6.1.2
Two
(
2)
laboratory
balances
 
accurate
to
±
0.01g.
2
6.1.3
Stop
watch
or
balance
data
recording
output
to
data
logger
with
accuracy
±
1
second.
3
6.1.4
Thermometer
 
accurate
to
±
2.0
°
F(
±
1.0
°
C).
4
6.1.5
A
lipped
pan
large
enough
to
hold
the
cut
glass
without
coming
into
contact
with
the
vertical
sides,
e.
g.
a
pizza
pan.
5
6.1.6
Mylar
film
sufficient
to
cover
the
bottom
of
the
pan.
6
6.1.7
Tape
to
keep
the
Mylar
from
shifting
in
the
bottom
of
the
pan.
7
6.1.8
Plastic
tri­
corner
beakers
of
equivalent
 
250
ml
to
400
ml
capacity.
8
6.1.9
Eye
dropper
or
pipette.
9
6.1.10
Disposable
resin
application
roller,
3 
16 
 
3 
4 
diameter
×
3 
 
6 
roller
length.
10
6.1.11
Hygrometer
or
psychrometer
11
accurate
to
±
5
percent
6.1.12
Insulating
board,
(
Teflon,
cardboard,
foam
board
etc.)
to
prevent
the
balance
from
becoming
a
heat
sink.
12
6.2
Optional
Equipment.
6.2.1
Laboratory
balance
 
accurate
to
±
.01g
with
digital
output,
such
as
an
RS
 
232
bi­
directional
interface
13
for
use
with
automatic
data
recording
devices.
6.2.2
Computer
with
recording
software
configured
to
link
to
balance
digital
output.
Must
be
programmed
to
record
data
at
the
minimum
intervals
required
for
manual
data
acquisition.
6.3
Supplies.
6.3.1
Chopped
strand
mat
 
1.5
oz/
ft.
2
14
7.
Reagents
and
Standards
7.1
Initiator.
The
initiator
type,
brand,
and
concentration
will
be
specified
by
resin
manufacturer,
or
as
required
by
production
operation.
7.2
Polyester
or
vinyl
ester
resin.
7.3
Vapor
suppressant
additive.

8.
Sample
Collection,
Preservation,
and
Storage
This
test
method
involves
the
immediate
recording
of
data
during
the
roll
out
and
curing
phases
of
the
lamination
process
during
each
test
run.
Samples
are
neither
collected,
preserved,
nor
stored.

9.
Quality
Control
Careful
attention
to
the
prescribed
test
procedure,
routing
equipment
calibration,
and
replicate
testing
are
the
quality
control
activities
for
this
test
method.
Refer
to
the
procedures
in
section
11.
A
minimum
of
six
test
runs
of
a
resin
system
without
a
suppressant
and
six
test
runs
of
the
same
resin
with
a
suppressant
shall
be
performed
for
each
resin
and
suppressant
test
combination.

10.
Calibration
and
Standardization
10.1
The
laboratory
balances,
stopwatch,
hygrometer
and
thermometer
shall
be
maintained
in
a
state
of
calibration
prior
to
testing
and
thereafter
on
a
scheduled
basis
as
determined
by
the
testing
laboratory.
This
shall
be
accomplished
by
using
certified
calibration
standards.
10.2
Calibration
records
shall
be
maintained
for
a
period
of
3
years.

11.
Test
Procedure
11.1
Test
Set­
up.
11.1.1
The
laboratory
balance
is
located
in
an
enclosure
to
prevent
fluctuations
in
balance
readings
due
to
localized
air
movement.
The
front
of
enclosure
is
open
to
permit
work
activity,
but
positioned
so
that
local
airflow
will
not
effect
balance
readings.
The
ambient
temperature
is
determined
by
suspending
the
thermometer
at
a
point
inside
the
enclosure.
11.1.2
The
bottom
of
the
aluminum
pan
is
covered
with
the
Mylar
film.
The
film
is
held
in
position
with
tape
or
by
friction
between
the
pan
and
the
film.
11.1.3
The
resin
and
pan
are
brought
to
room
temperature.
This
test
temperature
must
be
between
70
°
F
and
80
°
F.
The
testing
temperature
cannot
vary
more
than
±
2
°
F
during
the
measurement
of
test
runs.
Temperature
shall
be
recorded
at
the
same
time
weight
is
recorded
on
suppressed
and
non­
suppressed
test
data
sheets,
shown
in
Table
17.1.
11.1.4
The
relative
humidity
may
not
change
more
than
±
15
percent
during
the
test
runs.
This
is
determined
by
recording
the
relative
humidity
in
the
vicinity
of
the
test
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00114
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19435
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
chamber
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
an
individual
test
run.
This
data
is
recorded
on
the
test
data
sheets
shown
in
Table
17.1.
11.1.5
Two
plies
of
nominal
1.5
oz/
ft2
chopped
strand
mat
(
CSM)
are
cut
into
a
square
or
rectangle
with
the
minimum
surface
area
of
60
square
inches
(
i.
e.
a
square
with
a
side
dimension
of
7.75
inches).
11.1.6
The
appropriate
resin
application
roller
is
readily
available.
11.2
Resin
Gel
Time/
Initiator
Percentage
11.2.1
Previous
testing
has
indicated
that
resin
gel
time
influences
the
emissions
from
composite
production.
The
testing
indicated
that
longer
the
gel
times
led
to
higher
emissions.
There
are
a
number
of
factors
that
influence
gel
time
including
initiator
type,
initiator
brand,
initiator
level,
temperature
and
resin
additives.
Under
actual
usage
conditions
a
molder
will
adjust
the
initiator
to
meet
a
gel
time
requirement.
In
this
test
procedure,
the
vapor
suppressed
and
nonvapor
suppressed
resin
systems
will
be
adjusted
to
the
same
gel
time
by
selecting
the
appropriate
initiator
level
for
each.
11.2.2
All
test
runs
within
a
test
will
be
processed
in
a
manner
that
produces
the
same
resin
gel
time
±
2
minutes.
To
facilitate
the
resin
mixing
procedure,
master
batches
of
resin
and
resin
plus
vapor
suppressant
of
resin
are
prepared.
These
resin
master
batches
will
have
all
of
the
required
ingredients
except
initiator;
this
includes
filler
for
filled
systems.
The
gel
times
for
the
tests
are
conducted
using
the
master
batch
and
adjustments
to
meet
gel
time
requirements
shall
be
made
to
the
master
batch
before
emission
testing
is
conducted.
Test
temperatures
must
be
maintained
within
the
required
range,
during
gel
time
testing.
Further
gel
time
testing
is
not
required
after
the
non­
vapor
suppressed
and
vapor
suppressed
master
batches
are
established
with
gel
times
within
±
2
minutes.
A
sufficient
quantity
of
each
resin
should
be
prepared
to
allow
for
additional
test
specimens
in
the
event
one
or
more
test
fails
to
meet
the
data
acceptance
criteria
discussed
in
Section
11.5
and
shown
in
Table
17.2.
11.2.3
The
specific
brand
of
initiator
and
the
nominal
percentage
level
recommended
by
the
resin
manufacturer
will
be
indicated
on
the
resin
certificate
of
analysis
15;
or,
if
a
unique
gel
time
is
required
in
a
production
laminate,
initiator
brand
and
percentage
will
be
determined
by
that
specific
requirement.
11.2.4
Examples:
11.2.4.1
The
resin
for
a
test
run
is
specified
as
having
a
15­
minute
cup
gel
time
at
77
°
F
using
Brand
X
initiator
at
1.5
percent
by
weight.
The
non­
suppressed
control
resin
has
a
15­
minute
gel
time.
The
suppressed
resin
has
a
gel
time
of
17­
minutes.
An
initiator
level
of
1.5
percent
would
be
selected
for
the
both
the
non­
suppressed
and
the
suppressed
test
samples.
11.2.4.2
Based
on
a
specific
production
requirement,
a
resin
is
processed
in
production
using
2.25
percent
of
Brand
Y
initiator,
which
produces
a
20­
minute
gel
time.
This
initiator
at
level
of
2.25
percent
produces
a
20
minute
gel
time
for
the
nonsuppressed
control
resin,
but
yields
a
25­
minute
gel
time
for
the
suppressed
resin
sample.
The
suppressed
resin
is
retested
at
2.50
percent
initiator
and
produces
a
21­
minute
gel
time.
The
initiator
levels
of
2.25
percent
and
2.50
percent
respectively
would
yield
gel
times
within
±
2
minutes.
11.3
Test
Run
Procedure
for
Unfilled
Resin
(
see
the
data
sheet
shown
in
Table
17.1).
11.3.1
The
insulating
board
is
placed
on
the
balance.
11.3.2
The
aluminum
pan
with
attached
Mylar
film
is
placed
on
the
balance,
and
the
balance
is
tared
(
weight
reading
set
to
zero
with
the
plate
on
the
balance.)
11.3.3
Place
two
plies
of
1.5
oz.
CSM
on
the
balance
and
record
the
weight
(
glass
weight).
11.3.4
The
resin
beaker
and
stirring
rod
are
put
on
the
second
balance
and
tared.
11.3.5
The
required
resin
weight
and
initiator
weight
are
calculated
(
refer
to
calculation
formulas
in
12.2).
11.3.6
The
disposable
resin
application
roller
is
placed
on
the
edge
of
the
plate.
11.3.7
The
balance
is
tared,
with
the
aluminum
pan,
Mylar
film,
glass
mat,
and
resin
application
roller
on
the
balance
pan.
11.3.8
Resin
is
weighed
into
a
beaker,
as
calculated,
using
the
second
balance.
The
mixing
stick
should
be
tared
with
the
beaker
weight.
11.3.9
Initiator
is
weighed
into
the
resin,
as
calculated,
using
an
eyedropper
or
a
pipette,
and
the
combination
is
mixed.
11.3.10
Initiated
resin
is
poured
on
chopped
strand
mat
in
a
pe­
determined
pattern
(
see
Figure
11.6).
11.3.11
A
stopwatch
is
started
from
zero.
11.3.12
The
initial
laminate
weight
is
recorded.
11.3.13
The
plate
is
removed
from
balance
to
enable
roll­
out
of
the
laminate.
11.3.14
The
wet
laminate
is
rolled
with
the
resin
application
roller
to
completely
distribute
the
resin,
saturate
the
chopped
strand
mat,
and
eliminate
air
voids.
Roll­
out
time
should
be
in
the
range
of
2
to
316
minutes
and
vary
less
than
±
10
percent
of
the
average
time
required
for
the
complete
set
of
six
suppressed
and
six
non­
suppressed
runs.
11.3.15
Record
the
rollout
end
time
(
time
from
start
to
completion
of
rollout).
11.3.16
Place
the
resin
application
roller
on
the
edge
of
the
plate
when
rollout
is
completed.
11.3.17
Place
the
plate
back
on
the
balance
pan.
Immediately
record
the
weight.
11.3.18
For
the
first
test
in
a
series
of
six
tests,
weight
is
recorded
every
5­
minute
interval
(
suppressed
and
non­
suppressed).
The
end
of
the
test
occurs
when
three
consecutive
equal
weights
are
recorded
or
a
weight
gain
is
observed
(
the
last
weight
before
the
increased
weight
is
the
end
of
test
weight).
For
the
remaining
five
tests
in
the
series,
after
the
initial
weights
are
taken,
the
next
weight
is
recorded
30
minutes
before
the
end
of
the
test,
as
suggested
by
the
results
from
the
first
test.
It
is
likely
that
the
time
to
reach
the
end
point
of
a
suppressed
resin
test
will
be
shorter
than
the
time
required
to
complete
a
non­
suppressed
test.
Therefore,
the
time
to
start
taking
data
manually
may
be
different
for
suppressed
and
non­
suppressed
resins.
11.4
Test
Run
Procedures
for
Filled
Resin
Systems
17
Note
that
the
procedure
for
filled
systems
differs
from
the
procedure
for
unfilled
systems.
With
filled
systems,
resin
is
applied
to
one
ply
of
the
CSM
and
the
second
ply
is
placed
on
top
of
the
resin.
11.4.1
The
insulating
board
is
placed
on
the
balance.
11.4.2
The
aluminum
pan
with
attached
Mylar
film
is
placed
on
the
balance,
and
the
balance
is
tared
(
weight
reading
set
to
zero
with
the
plate
on
the
balance.)
11.4.3
Place
two
plies
of
1.5
oz.
CSM
on
the
balance
and
record
the
weight
(
glass
weight).
11.4.4
Remove
the
top
ply
of
fiberglass
and
record
its
weight
(
weight
of
1st
layer
of
glass).
11.4.5
The
required
resin
weight
and
initiator
weight
are
calculated
(
refer
to
calculation
formulas
in
12.2).
Calculate
the
weight
of
filled
resin
and
initiator
based
on
the
2
layers
of
fiberglass.
11.4.6
The
resin
beaker
and
stirring
rod
are
put
on
the
second
balance
and
tared.
11.4.7
A
disposable
resin
application
roller
is
placed
on
the
edge
of
the
plate.
11.4.8
The
balance
is
tared,
with
the
aluminum
pan,
Mylar
film,
glass
mat,
and
resin
application
roller
on
the
balance
pan.
11.4.9
Resin
is
weighed
into
the
beaker,
as
calculated,
using
the
second
balance.
The
mixing
stick
should
be
tared
with
the
beaker
weight.
11.4.10
Initiator
is
weighed
into
the
resin,
as
calculated,
using
an
eyedropper
or
a
pipette,
and
the
combination
is
mixed.
11.4.11
Initiated
resin
is
poured
on
the
single
ply
of
CSM
in
a
pre­
determined
pattern.
Refer
to
Figure
11.6.
11.4.12
A
stopwatch
is
started
from
zero.
11.4.13
Record
the
weight
of
the
resin
ans
single
ply
of
CSM
(
L1).
The
initial
laminate
weight
equals
L1
plus
the
weight
of
second
glass
layer.
11.4.14
Replace
the
second
layer
of
fiberglass.
11.4.15
Remove
the
plate
from
the
balance
to
allow
roll­
out
of
the
laminate.
11.4.16
Roll
the
wet
laminate
with
the
resin
application
roller
to
completely
distribute
the
resin,
saturate
the
chopped
strand
mat,
and
eliminate
air
voids.
Roll­
out
time
should
be
in
the
range
of
2
to
316
minutes
and
vary
less
than
±
10
percent
of
the
average
time
required
for
the
complete
set
of
six
suppressed
and
six
non­
suppressed
runs.
11.4.17
Record
the
roll­
out
end
time
(
time
from
start
to
completion
of
rollout).
11.4.18
Place
the
resin
application
roller
on
the
edge
of
the
plate
when
rollout
is
completed.
11.4.19
Place
the
plate
back
on
the
balance
pan.
The
initial
weight
is
recorded
immediately.
11.4.20
For
the
first
test
run
in
a
series
of
six,
weight
is
recorded
at
every
5­
minute
interval
(
suppressed
and
non­
suppressed).
The
end
of
the
test
occurs
when
three
consecutive
equal
weights
are
recorded
or
a
weight
gain
is
observed
(
the
last
weight
before
the
increased
weight
is
the
end
of
test
weight).
For
the
remaining
five
tests
in
the
series,
after
the
initial
weights
are
taken,
the
next
weight
is
recorded
30
minutes
before
the
end
of
the
test,
as
suggested
by
the
results
from
the
first
test.
It
is
likely
that
the
time
to
reach
the
end
point
of
a
suppressed
resin
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00115
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19436
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
test
will
be
shorter
than
the
time
required
to
complete
a
non­
suppressed
test.
Therefore,
the
time
to
start
taking
data
manually
may
be
different
for
suppressed
and
non­
suppressed
resins.
11.5
Data
Acceptance
Criteria:
11.5.1
A
test
set
is
designed
as
twelve
individual
test
runs
using
the
same
resin,
initiator,
and
gel
time,
six
of
the
test
runs
use
the
resin
non­
vapor
suppressed
and
the
other
six
use
it
vapor
suppressed.
11.5.2
If
a
test
run
falls
outside
any
of
the
time,
temperature,
weight
or
humidity
variation
requirements,
it
must
be
discarded
and
run
again.
11.5.3
The
laminate
roll
out
time
for
each
individual
test
run
must
vary
less
than
±
10
percent
of
the
average
time
required
for
the
complete
set
of
six
suppressed
and
six
nonsuppressed
runs.
11.5.4
Test
temperature
for
each
test
run
must
be
maintained
within
±
2
°
F
and
the
average
must
be
between
70
°
and
80
°
F.
Refer
to
11.1.3.
11.5.5
The
difference
in
the
amount
of
resin
for
each
run
must
be
within
±
10
percent
of
the
average
weight
for
the
complete
set
of
six
suppressed
and
six
non­
suppressed
runs.
11.5.6
The
relative
humidity
from
each
test
run
must
be
within
±
15
percent
of
the
average
humidity
for
the
complete
set
of
six
suppressed
and
six
non­
suppressed
tests.
Refer
to
11.1.4
11.5.7
The
glass
content
for
each
test
set
must
be
within
±
10
percent
of
the
average
resin­
to­/
glass
ratio
for
the
complete
set
of
six
suppressed
and
six
non­
suppressed
runs.
Refer
to
12.2).
11.5.8
The
filler
content
for
each
test
of
a
test
set
must
be
within
±
5
percent
of
the
average
filler
content
for
the
complete
set
of
six
suppressed
and
six
non­
suppressed
runs.
Refer
to
12.2.
11.6
Resin
Application
Pour
Pattern:
11.6.1
To
facilitate
the
distribution
of
resin
across
the
chopped
strand
mat,
and
to
provide
consistency
from
test
to
test,
a
uniform
pour
pattern
should
be
used.
A
typical
pour
pattern
is
shown
below:

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

12.
Data
Analysis
and
Calculations
12.1
Data
Analysis:
This
test
method
requires
a
simple
mass
balance
calculation,
no
special
data
analysis
is
necessary.
12.2
Calculations:
12.2.1
The
target
glass
content
(
percent)
for
unfilled
resin
systems
is
determined
from
the
specific
production
parameters
being
evaluated.
In
absence
of
any
specific
production
requirements
the
target
may
be
set
at
the
tester's
discretion.
12.2.2
Glass
content
determination
(
expressed
as
a
per
cent):
%
Glass
=
Glass
wt(
g)/(
Glass
wt(
g)
+
Resin
weight
(
g))
12.2.3
Weight
of
resin
required:
Resin
weight
required
=
(
Glass
wt
(
g)/%
glass)
 
Glass
wt
(
g)
12.2.4
Filled
resin
formulation
determination
for
filled
resin
systems
(
e.
g.
>
30
percent
filler
by
weight
for
a
particulate
filler,
or
>
1
percent
by
weight
for
a
lightweight
filler,
such
as
hollow
microspheres):
%
Resin
content
=
resin
weight(
g)/(
resin
weight(
g)
+
glass
weight(
g)
+
filler
weight(
g))
%
Glass
content
=
glass
weight(
g)/(
resin
weight(
g)
+
glass
weight(
g)
+
filler
weight(
g))
Filler
content
=
filler
weight(
g)/(
resin
weight(
g)
+
glass
weight(
g)
+
filler
weight(
g))
12.2.5
Initiator
weight
determination:
Initiator
weight
(
g)
=
Resin
weight(
g)
×
Initiator
%
12.2.6
Emission
weight
loss
determination:
Emissions
weight
loss
(
g)
=
Initial
resin
weight
(
g)
¥
Final
resin
weight
(
g)
12.2.7
%
Emission
weight
loss:
%
Emission
Weight
Loss
=
(
Emission
weight
loss
(
g)
Initial
resin
weight
(
g)
×
100
12.2.8
Average
%
Emission
Weight
Loss
(
assuming
six
test
runs):

Average
%

i
N
Emission
Weight
Loss
=
Emission
Weight
Lossi
%
/
(
)

= 
6
6
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00116
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.009</
GPH>
ER21AP03.010</
MATH>
19437
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
12.2.9
VSE
Factor
calculation:

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

TABLE
12.1.
 
EXAMPLE
CALCULATION
Test
#
%
VS
weight
loss
%
NVS
weight
loss
1
..................................
6.87
10.86
2
..................................
6.76
11.23
3
..................................
5.80
12.02
4
..................................
5.34
11.70
5
..................................
6.11
11.91
6
..................................
6.61
10.63
Average
Weight
Loss
6.25
11.39
VSE
Factor
.................
..............
0.4
VSE
Factor
=
0.45
VSE
Factor
is
used
as
input
into
the
appropriate
equation
in
Table
1
to
this
subpart.
Example
from
Table
1
to
this
subpart:
Manual
Resin
Application,
35
percent
HAP
resin,
VSE
Factor
of
0.45
HAP
Emissions
with
vapor
suppresants
=
((
0.286
×
%
HAP)
¥
0.0529)
×
2000
×
(
1
 
(
0.5
×
VSE
factor))
HAP
Emissions
with
vapor
suppresants
=
((
0.286
×
.35)
¥
0.0529)
×
2000
×
(
1
¥
(
0.5
×
.45))
HAP
Emissions
with
vapor
suppresants
=
73
pounds
of
HAP
emissions
per
ton
of
resin.

13.
Method
Performance
13.1
Bias:
The
bias
of
this
test
method
has
not
been
determined.
13.2
Precision
Testing
13.2.1
Subsequent
to
the
initial
development
of
this
test
protocol
by
the
Composites
Fabricators
Association,
a
series
of
tests
were
conducted
in
three
different
laboratory
facilities.
The
purpose
of
this
round
robin
testing
was
to
verify
the
precision
of
the
test
method
in
various
laboratories.
Each
laboratory
received
a
sample
of
an
orthophthalic
polyester
resin
from
the
same
production
batch,
containing
48
per
cent
styrene
by
weight.
Each
testing
site
was
also
provided
with
the
same
vapor
suppressant
additive.
The
suppressant
manufacturer
specified
the
percentage
level
of
suppressant
additive.
The
resin
manufacturer
specified
the
type
and
level
of
initiator
required
to
produce
a
20
minute
gel
time.
The
target
glass
content
was
30
percent
by
weight.
13.2.2
Each
laboratory
independently
conducted
the
VSE
test
according
to
this
method.
A
summary
of
the
results
is
included
in
Table
13.1.

TABLE
13.1.
 
ROUND
ROBIN
TESTING
RESULTS
Test
Lab
1
Test
Lab
2
Test
Lab
3
NVS
VS
NVS
S
NVS
VS
Average
percent
WT
Loss
.......................................................................
4.24
1.15
4.69
1.84
5.73
1.61
Standard
Deviation
..................................................................................
0.095
0.060
0.002
0.002
0.020
0.003
VSE
Factor
...............................................................................................
................
0.730
................
0.607
................
0.720
13.3
Comparison
to
EPA
Reference
Methods
This
test
has
no
corresponding
EPA
reference
method.

14.
Pollution
Prevention
The
sample
size
used
in
this
method
produces
a
negligible
emission
of
HAP,
and
has
an
insignificant
impact
upon
the
atmosphere.

15.
Waste
Management
The
spent
and
waste
materials
generated
during
this
test
are
disposed
according
to
required
facility
procedures,
and
waste
management
recommendations
on
the
corresponding
material
safety
data
sheets.

16.
References
and
footnotes
16.1
Footnotes:

1
Balance
Enclosure
 
The
purpose
of
the
balance
enclosure
is
to
prevent
localized
airflow
from
adversely
affecting
the
laboratory
balance.
The
enclosure
may
be
a
simple
three­
sided
box
with
a
top
and
an
open
face.
The
configuration
of
the
enclosure
is
secondary
to
the
purpose
of
providing
a
stable
and
steady
balance
reading,
free
from
the
effects
of
airflow,
for
accurate
measurements.
The
enclosure
can
be
fabricated
locally.
A
typical
enclosure
is
shown
in
Figure
17.1.
2
Laboratory
Balance
 
Ohaus
Precision
Standard
Series
P/
N
TS400D
or
equivalent
 
Paul
N.
Gardner
Co.
316
NE
1st
St.
Pompano
Beach,
FL
33060
or
other
suppliers.
3
Stop
Watch
 
Local
supply.
4
Thermometer
 
Mercury
thermometer
 
ASTM
No.
21C
or
equivalent;
Digital
thermometer
 
P/
N
TH
 
33033
or
equivalent
 
Paul
N.
Gardner
Co.
316
NE
1st
St.
Pompano
Beach,
FL
33060
or
other
suppliers.
5
Aluminum
Pan
 
Local
supply.
6
Mylar
 
Local
supply.
7
Double
Sided
Tape
 
3M
Double
Stick
Tape
or
equivalent,
local
supply.
8
Laboratory
Beakers
 
250
to
400ml
capacity
 
Local
laboratory
supply.
9
Eye
Dropper
or
Pipette
 
Local
laboratory
supply.
10
Disposable
Resin
Application
Roller
Source
 
Wire
Handle
Roller
P/
N
205
 
050
 
300
or
Plastic
Handle
Roller
P/
N
215
 
050
 
300
or
equivalent;
ES
Manufacturing
Inc.,
2500
26st
Ave.
North,
St.
Petersburg,
FL
33713,
www.
esmfg.
com,
or
other
source.
Refer
to
Figure
17.3.
11
Hygrometer
or
Psychrometer
 
Model#
THWD
 
1,
or
equivalent
 
Part
#
975765
by
Amprobe
Instrument,
630
Merrick
Road,
P.
O.
Box
329,
Lynbrook,
NY
11563,
516
 
593
 
5600
12
Insulating
Board
(
Teflon,
cardboard,
foam
board
etc.)
 
Local
supply.
13
Laboratory
Balance
With
Digital
Output
 
Ohaus
Precision
Standard
Series
P/
N
TS120S
or
equivalent
 
Paul
N.
Gardner
Co.
316
NE
1st
St.
Pompano
Beach,
FL
33060
or
other
suppliers.
14
Chopped
Strand
Mat
 
1.5
oz/
ft
2
Sources:
Owens
Corning
Fiberglas
 
Fiberglas
M
 
723;
PPG
Industries
 
ABM
HTX;
Vetrotex
America
 
M
 
127
or
equivalent.
15
Certificate
of
Analysis:
Resin
gel
time,
as
recorded
on
the
resin
certificate
of
analysis,
is
measured
using
a
laboratory
standard
gel
time
procedure.
This
procedure
typically
uses
a
100
gram
cup
sample
at
77
°
F
(
25
°
C),
a
specific
type
of
initiator
and
a
specified
percentage.
16
Roll­
out
times
may
vary
with
resin
viscosity
or
resin
additive.
The
important
aspect
of
this
step
is
to
produce
the
same
roll­
out
time
for
both
the
suppressed
and
non­
suppressed
samples.
17
While
this
test
can
be
used
with
filled
resin
systems,
the
test
is
not
designed
to
determine
the
effect
of
the
filler
on
emissions,
but
rather
to
measure
the
effect
of
the
suppressant
additive
in
the
resin
system.
When
evaluating
a
filled
system
both
the
non­
vapor
suppressed
and
vapor
suppressed
samples
should
be
formulated
with
the
same
type
and
level
of
filler.
16.2
References
1.
Phase
1
 
Baseline
Study
Hand
Lay­
up,
CFA,
1996
2.
CFA
Vapor
Suppressant
Effectiveness
Test
Development,
4/
3/
98,
correspondence
with
Dr.
Madeleine
Strum,
EPA,
OAQPS
3.
CFA
Vapor
Suppressant
Effectiveness
Screening
Tests,
4/
4/
98
4.
Styrene
Suppressant
Systems
Study,
Reichhold
Chemical,
11/
30/
98
5.
Evaluation
of
the
CFA's
New
Proposed
Vapor
Suppressant
Effectiveness
Test,
Technical
Service
Request
#:
ED
 
01
 
98,
BYK
Chemie,
6/
3/
98
6.
Second
Evaluation
of
the
CFA's
New
Proposed
Vapor
Suppressant
Effectiveness
Test,
Technical
Service
Request
#:
ED
 
02
 
98,
BYK
Chemie,
1/
26/
99
17.
Data
Sheets
and
Figures
17.1
This
data
sheet,
or
a
similar
data
sheet,
is
used
to
record
the
test
data
for
filled,
unfilled,
suppressed
and
non­
suppressed
tests.
If
additional
time
is
required,
the
data
sheet
may
be
extended.

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
U
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
15:
21
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00117
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19438
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00118
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4725
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.011</
GPH>
19439
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
17.2
Data
Acceptance
Criteria
Worksheet:
The
following
worksheet
is
used
to
determine
the
quality
of
collected
data
(
i.
e.
insure
the
data
collected
all
meets
acceptance
criteria)

TABLE
17.2.
 
DATA
ACCEPTANCE
CRITERIA
WORKSHEET
Test
No.
Temperature
Laminate
roll
out
time,
min
Relative
humidity,
%
Resin
weight,
(
g)
Glass
content
%
Resin
distribution
Meets
criteria
Y/
N
Min
Max
Delta
Initial
Final
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00119
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.012</
GPH>
19440
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
17.2.
 
DATA
ACCEPTANCE
CRITERIA
WORKSHEET
 
Continued
Test
No.
Temperature
Laminate
roll
out
time,
min
Relative
humidity,
%
Resin
weight,
(
g)
Glass
content
%
Resin
distribution
Meets
criteria
Y/
N
Min
Max
Delta
Initial
Final
12
Average
Criteria
.......................................
±
2
°
F
±
10%
of
Average
±
15
of
Average
±
15
of
Average
±
10%
of
Avg.
±
10%
of
Avg.
<
1 
2
inch
off
mat
All
Y
17.3
VSE
Factor
Calculation
TABLE
17.3.
 
CALCULATIONS
WORKSHEET
Vapor
suppressed
Non­
vapor
suppressed
Test
#
%
Weight
loss
Test
#
%
Weight
loss
Average
Weight
Loss
VSE
Factor
VSE
Factor
=
1
 
(
%
Average
Weight
Loss
VS/
%
Average
Weight
LossNVS)

17.4
Figures
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00120
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
19441
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00121
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4725
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.013</
GPH>
19442
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
50
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00122
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4725
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.014</
GPH>
19443
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
76
/
Monday,
April
21,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
5615
Filed
4
 
18
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
C
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
18:
24
Apr
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00123
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
21APR1.
SGM
21APR1
ER21AP03.015</
GPH>
