National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production, 50118-50136 [05-16701]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50118-50136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16701]



[[Page 50117]]

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

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced 
Plastic Composites Production; Direct Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 50118]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0003; FRL-7957-7]
RIN 2060-AM23


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on amendments to the 
national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
reinforced plastic composites production which were issued April 12, 
2003, under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The direct final 
amendments revise compliance options for open molding, correct errors, 
and add clarification to sections of the rule. We are issuing the 
amendments as a direct final rule, without prior proposal, because we 
view the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal 
Register notice, we are publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal to amend the NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites 
production if adverse comments are filed.

DATES: The direct final rule is effective on October 24, 2005 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by 
September 26, 2005 or if a public hearing is requested by September 6, 
2005. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions will 
become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn due to 
adverse comment.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0003, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and barnett.keith@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741 and (919) 541-5600.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: HQ EPA Docket 
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total 
of two copies. We request that you also send a separate copy of each 
comment to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: HQ EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0003, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20004. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003. 
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the 
following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, 
EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that 
you claim to be CBI. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov 
Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA 
without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 
2002 (67 FR 38102).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hardcopy 
at the HQ EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0003, EPA West 
Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the HQ EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Mr. 
Keith Barnett, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group 
(C504-05), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 
number (919) 541-5605; fax number (919) 541-5600; e-mail address: 
barnett.keith@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Examples of
            Category                 NAICS code\1\    regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................  325211, 326122,     Reinforced plastic
                                   325991, 326191,     composites
                                   327991, 327993,     production
                                   332998, 33312,      facilities that
                                   33651, 335311,      manufacture
                                   335313, 335312,     intermediate and/
                                   33422, 336211,      or final products
                                   336112, 336211,     using styrene
                                   33651, 33635,       containing
                                   336399, 33612,      thermoset resins
                                   336213, 336413;     and gel coats.
                                   and 336214.

[[Page 50119]]

 
Federal Government..............  ..................  Federally owned
                                                       facilities that
                                                       manufacture
                                                       intermediate and/
                                                       or final products
                                                       using styrene
                                                       containing
                                                       thermoset resins
                                                       and gel coats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    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 40 CFR 63.5785 and 40 
CFR 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.
    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 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Comments. We are publishing the direct final rule amendments 
without prior proposal because we view the amendments as 
noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in 
the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register notice, we are 
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend 
the NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites production if adverse 
comments are filed. If we receive any adverse comments on one or more 
distinct amendments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public which provisions will become effective, 
and which provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We 
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule, should the 
Agency determine to issue one. Any of the distinct amendments in 
today's direct final rule for which we do not receive adverse comment 
will become effective on the previously mentioned date. We will not 
institute a second comment period on the direct final rule amendments. 
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the direct final rule amendments is available only by filing 
a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit by October 24, 2005. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 
CAA, only an objection to the direct final rule amendments that was 
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 direct final rule 
amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceeding brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    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 Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    The EPA promulgated NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites 
production on April 21, 2003. The final rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
WWWW) includes standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP), as well as 
monitoring, performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements related to those standards. After promulgation of the 
rule, EPA received numerous questions relating to rule interpretation. 
The questions pointed out minor inconsistencies in some of the tables 
and the rule language, areas where the rule requirements were not 
clear, and restrictions that would preclude most facilities using the 
least burdensome open molding compliance option. Today's action 
includes direct final rule amendments that resolve inconsistencies, 
clarify language, and add additional compliance flexibility. None of 
the amendments will have any discernable effect on the stringency of 
the rule.

II. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW

    This subpart applies to facilities that manufacture reinforced 
plastic composites and are located at major sources of hazardous air 
pollutants. For more information on rule applicability see 40 CFR 
63.5785.
    The EPA received numerous questions relating to rule requirements 
for polymer casting and closed molding operations. These operations 
were mentioned in the rule or rule preamble so it would be clear that 
they were covered by the rule. However, we did not list any 
requirements for these operations in the rule, except for compression/
injection closed molding which has a work practice requirement. In 
order to make it clear these operations have no requirements, polymer 
casting and closed molding operations (except for compression/injection 
molding) have been added to the list of operations with no requirements 
in 40 CFR 63.5790(c). We also added language to that paragraph to 
clarify that though certain operations have no requirements, any 
requirements that apply to co-located operations are not affected.
    A question was raised concerning area sources that commenced 
construction prior to August 2, 2002, but did not become a major source 
until after August 2, 2002. The final rule language in 40 CFR 
63.5795(a)(2) appears to imply that any area source that became major 
due to an expansion or other type of construction after August 2, 2002, 
would be considered a new source because it was not an affected source 
prior to commencing construction. Our intent was that any existing 
source would not become a new source as the result of reconstruction. 
Therefore, we are changing the sentence ``You commence construction, 
and no other reinforced plastic composites production affected source 
exists at that site'' by removing the word affected from the sentence. 
The new language will now read ``You commence construction, and no 
other reinforced plastic composites production source exists at that 
site.'' Therefore, it will

[[Page 50120]]

now be clear that an area source that existed prior to August 3, 2002 
will not be considered a new source once it becomes major due to an 
expansion or other type of reconstruction.
    In 40 CFR 63.5799, the first sentence of paragraph (a) refers to 
paragraphs (b) and (d) of 40 CFR 63.5805. Paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 
63.5805 discusses existing source requirements. We should have 
referenced paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 63.5805, which discusses 
requirements for new facilities. We have changed the rule text to 
correct this.
    Also in 40 CFR 63.5799(b), we included a sentence that stated ``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, then they can 
be deemed to be below the 100 tons per year (tpy) threshold.'' We 
received a comment that this sentence implies that a facility that used 
process controls could not use a permit limit of 100 tons per year 
(tpy) to demonstrate they were below the 100 tpy threshold. Our intent 
was that any facility that could demonstrate, through its permit 
requirements, that it would be below the 100 tpy threshold would not 
have to perform emission calculations. Therefore, we have changed the 
sentence to read ``If an existing facility has accepted an enforceable 
permit limit that would result in emissions of less than 100 tpy of HAP 
measured prior to any add-on controls, and can demonstrate that they 
will operate at that level subsequent to the compliance date, they can 
be deemed to be below the 100 tpy threshold.'' This should make it 
clear that both restricted operation hours and use of process controls 
are acceptable methods to demonstrate through permit requirements that 
the facility will not meet nor exceed the 100 tpy threshold.
    We received numerous questions concerning 40 CFR 63.5805, 
specifically concerning when the 95 percent control requirement applied 
to existing sources, and which operations were potentially subject to 
95 percent control. We have revised the wording of 40 CFR 63.5805 to 
make it more clear by changing paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph 40 CFR 
63.5805(a) now discusses only the limits applicable to centrifugal 
casting and continuous lamination/casting operations, rather that all 
operations at existing sources. Paragraph 40 CFR 63.5805(b) discusses 
all operations at existing sources not covered in paragraph 40 CFR 
63.5805(a). No requirements have changed as result of this revision.
    We received several questions relating to the values for the 
highest organic HAP content for compliant materials shown in Table 3 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63. In one case, a local regulatory agency wanted 
to write the organic HAP limits in Table 3 to subpart WWWW as absolute 
permit limits. In another case, someone interpreted the organic HAP 
limits as absolute limits not to be exceeded.
    The purpose of the highest organic HAP content for compliant 
materials shown in Table 3 to subpart WWWW was only to provide examples 
of compliant materials, and these values are not emission limits or HAP 
content limits. The actual emission limits are the pounds per ton (lb/
ton) limits in the third column of Table 3 to subpart WWWW. If you meet 
the lb/ton limits in the third column of Table 3 to subpart WWWW, you 
are in compliance, regardless of the HAP content of the resin or gel 
coat.
    In order to clarify our intent, we have removed the fourth column 
from Table 3 to subpart WWWW and reorganized the discussion of 
compliance options in 40 CFR 63.5810. Paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 63.5810 
now covers how to determine if a specific resin or gel coat, as 
applied, meets its applicable emission limit. Paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 
63.5810 covers averaging within each individual combination of 
operation type and resin application method or gel coat type. Paragraph 
(c) of 40 CFR 63.5810 covers demonstrating compliance using a weighted 
average emission limit. Paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 63.5810 covers options 
where you can meet the organic HAP emissions limit for one resin 
application method and use the same resin for all application methods 
of that resin type.
    After promulgation, it was pointed out to EPA that for a facility 
to be able to use the compliant materials compliance option, all 
materials would have to be compliant. Therefore, even if a facility 
used numerous resin and gel coats, having one noncompliant material 
would require all materials be included in some type of averaging. This 
would not result in any additional emissions reductions, but would 
increase the amount of reporting and recordkeeping.
    A second comment concerned the use of the term ``compliant 
materials.'' It was pointed out that it is the combination of a 
specific resin or gel coat, the application method, and controls that 
determine compliance, not the resin or gel coat alone. For example, a 
38 percent HAP resin applied with nonatomized spray has an emission 
factor that is below its corresponding emission limit and, therefore, 
would comply with its applicable emission limit. However, if the same 
resin is applied manually, its emission factor would be above its 
corresponding emission limit, and to comply with the rule, this 
combination of resin and application method would have to be averaged 
with other operations. This specific resin, as applied, complies in one 
case, but not the other. Therefore, using the term compliant materials 
is misleading.
    For this reason, we have modified 40 CFR 63.5810 to clarify that 
when a specific resin or gel coat, as applied, meets the applicable 
emission limit, then it is in compliance, and we have dropped the term 
compliant materials from the rule. We are also modifying the rule to 
allow facilities to both demonstrate compliance for some resins and gel 
coats using averaging, and that some individual resins and gel coats, 
as applied, comply with their emission limits. This change will have no 
impact on the actual rule limits and should result in no change in HAP 
emissions, but may reduce the required reporting and recordkeeping. We 
have also revised paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 63.5895, which discusses 
collecting data to demonstrate continuous compliance, to reflect this 
change in compliance options. We are limiting this flexibility for a 
specific resin or gel coat to state that if a specific resin or gel 
coat is being used in any averaging calculations, then all of that 
specific resin or gel coat resin must be part of averaging, even if the 
resin, as applied, would meet its applicable emission limit. You must 
collect resin use data for any resin or gel coat that is involved in 
averaging.
    In paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 63.5810, we state that you may 
demonstrate compliance for an individual resin or gel coat based on the 
HAP content, application method, and any controls that reduce its 
emission factor. As an example, a non-corrosion resistant/high strength 
(non-CR/HS) resin with an organic HAP content of 38 percent, applied 
using nonatomized spray, would have an emission factor of 86 lb/ton 
calculated using Equation 1.c.i of table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63. 
The emission limit for this operation as shown in table 3 to subpart 
WWWW of part 63 is 88 lb/ton. Therefore, this resin, as applied, 
complies with its emission limit. If the facility switches to atomized 
resin application, the emission factor would change to 183 lb/ton, and 
the resin would not comply with its emission limit.
    A second example of demonstrating compliance for an individual 
resin or

[[Page 50121]]

gel coat would be a 41 percent HAP resin that contains a vapor 
suppressant with a vapor suppressant effectiveness factor of 0.5 
applied using nonatomized spray. The emission factor calculated using 
Equation 1.c.i from table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63 would be 74.2 
lb/ton. This is below the emission limit of 88 lb/ton. Therefore, this 
resin, as applied complies with its emission limit as long as 
nonatomized mechanical application and vapor suppressant continue to be 
used.
    If a facility required to meet the limits in table 3 to subpart 
WWWW of part 63 has some type of add-on control, the control efficiency 
may be used to show compliance. For example, a facility that uses a 35 
percent HAP white gel coat with atomized spray has an emission factor 
of 335.5 lb/ton, which is above the allowable emission limit of 267 lb/
ton. Therefore, this gel coat, as applied, does not comply with its 
emission limit. However, if the facility controlled the gel coat spray 
booth emissions by 47.5 percent overall (50 percent capture efficiency 
and 95 percent control), the emission factor would now be 176 lb/ton, 
and the gel coat does comply. This would require that the facility 
demonstrate the capture and control efficiency using the appropriate 
test methods in the NESHAP.
    We have also added a paragraph (d)(4) to 40 CFR 63.5810 that states 
if a facility elects to comply using the option in paragraph (d) of 40 
CFR 63.5810 and uses resins that meet the organic HAP limits in table 7 
to subpart WWWW of part 63, then those individual resins would be 
considered to be in compliance, and resin use records are not required.
    A commenter stated that some pultrusion machines have multiple 
preform and pre-wet areas prior to the die. This configuration is 
incompatible with the language of 40 CFR 63.5830(b)(4) because this 
language would only be correct for one pre-wet area. Therefore, we have 
revised the language so multiple preform and pre-wet areas can be used. 
This change does not affect the total amount of area allowed to be open 
and should not have any impact on control effectiveness.
    A commenter stated that some direct die injection systems do not 
recycle resin drip directly back to the resin injection chamber. It is 
recycled back to the process. We agree that recycling the resin back to 
the process would result in no additional emissions and have modified 
the description of direct die injection in 40 CFR 63.5830(c)(3) to 
reflect this.
    Another commenter stated that they manufactured large pultruded 
parts that currently do not meet the large parts definition of 1,000 
reinforcements and a cross sectional area of 60 inches or more shown in 
footnote 6 of table 3 to subpart WWWW of part 63. These parts were well 
over 60 inches of cross sectional area but contain large roving and 
stitched fabrics for reinforcement. They maintained that these parts 
should be included in the large parts definition because the factors we 
used to determine what made a part large, i.e., part size and 
complexity, were as relevant here as they would be if they replaced the 
fabric and larger roving with a smaller roving and more individual 
reinforcements to meet the 1,000 reinforcement requirement.
    We agree with this comment and have changed the definition of large 
pultruded parts for existing pultrusion operations in footnote 6 to 
table 3 of subpart WWWW of part 63 to 60 square inches or more and 
1,000 reinforcements, or 60 square inches or more and the glass 
equivalent of 1,000 ends of 113 yield roving. This change also includes 
correcting the cross sectional measure to 60 square inches, not 60 
inches. We also made corresponding changes to item 9 of table 9 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63.
    We received a comment that equation 2 in 40 CFR 63.5885 was in 
error because, based on the definition of uncontrolled wet-out area 
organic HAP emissions, the equation did not account for emissions that 
are captured and vented to a control device. We agreed with this 
comment and have revised equations 2 and 3 of 40 CFR 63.5885 to account 
for all emissions generated in the wet-out areas.
    A commenter noted that we did not specify how a source was to 
report changing compliance options. We have added paragraph (i) to 40 
CFR 63.5910 that requires the source to state if they changed 
compliance options in their next compliance report.
    We made several corrections to the definitions in 40 CFR 63.5935 in 
response to comments. In the definition for ``high performance gel 
coat,'' we had listed the National Science Foundation as a source of 
property testing standards. This should have been the National 
Sanitation Foundation. We changed the definition of ``mixing'' to 
include mixing of putties or polyputties. In the definition for ``neat 
resin plus,'' we had left the word ``plus'' out of the last sentence. 
In the definition of ``polymer casting,'' a commenter noted that 
sometimes polymer casters vibrate or smooth the material. We added 
language to the ``polymer casting'' definition to make it clear that 
vibrating or smoothing the resin is not considered rolling out or 
working the resin.
    We made several changes to table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63. We 
corrected a typographical error in the column numbering. We also 
corrected equation 1.f where we had an error on the first term of the 
equation and added a new equation to calculate emissions from atomized 
spray gel coat using robotic or automated spray. Finally, we added a 
footnote to table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63 stating that the 
equations presented are intended for use to determine compliance with 
the rule and do not preclude the use of other emission factors to 
calculate emissions for other purposes, such as reports required by 
their title V permit. The reason for this change was an industry 
concern that State and local regulators were requiring sources to use 
the equations in table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63 in lieu of 
potentially more accurate factors. However, this footnote does not 
preclude a facility from using the equations in table 1 to subpart WWWW 
of part 63 if these equations are deemed to be the most accurate 
available.
    Several changes were made to table 3 to subpart WWWW of part 63 
based on comments and questions received after promulgation of the 
final rule. We received a comment that for three of the operations in 
table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63, substituting the value for the 
highest HAP content for a compliant resin in column four into the 
equations in table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 63 resulted in a 
calculated emission factor that was above the corresponding emission 
limit. This should not happen if the resin or gel coat is considered 
compliant. On further review, we discovered that the error was due to 
the way we rounded the calculations during floor development. As a 
result, the facilities that set the floor for these three operations 
would not be in compliance. We do not believe that the rounding 
procedure should result in a floor-setting facility to now be out of 
compliance with the floor. Therefore, we changed the rounding technique 
used to calculate the emission limits for the open molding operations 
in table 3 to subpart WWWW of part 63. The result was the emission 
limits for the three operations noted by the commenter changed 
slightly. The limit for open molding, CR/HS resins, mechanical resin 
application changed from 112 to 113 lb/ton. The emission limit for non-
CR/HS resin, mechanical resin changed from 87 to 88 lb/ton. The 
emission limit for open molding, tooling gel coat changed from 437 to 
440 lb/ton. These changes will not affect the costs

[[Page 50122]]

of compliance or emissions reductions of the rule. The changes simply 
make the floor emission limits consistent with the facilities setting 
the floors. The changes in table 3 to subpart WWWW of part 63 also 
slightly changed the calculated maximum HAP content for these processes 
shown in table 7 to subpart WWWW of part 63, and we have updated table 
7 to subpart WWWW of part 63 to reflect the changes in table 3 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63.
    One commenter stated that regulated sources were confused on which 
emission limit to use for shrinkage controlled resins when the resin is 
used to make tools. We added a footnote to clarify that a shrinkage 
controlled resin is subject to the emission limits in item 5 of table 3 
to subpart WWWW of part 63 regardless of whether it is used as a 
tooling or a production resin.
    In table 3 to subpart WWWW of part 63 we did not have emission 
limits for manually applied gel coat because we did not have data to 
develop specific limits. In the footnotes, we stated that for 
compliance purposes, manually applied gel coat should be treated as if 
it were applied using spray guns. In table 1 to subpart WWWW of part 
63, we had an equation to calculate an emission factor for manual gel 
coat application, but we stated not to use the equation for compliance 
purposes. We believe this has caused some confusion. Therefore, we have 
removed the manual gel coat equation from table 1 to subpart WWWW of 
part 63 because this equation is not necessary to show compliance with 
the NESHAP. We have also revised the footnote concerning manual gel 
coat application in table 3 to subpart WWWW of part 63 to make it more 
clear that to demonstrate compliance for manually applied gel coat you 
treat manually applied gel coat as if it were applied using spray 
equipment.
    A commenter noted that footnote 1 should apply to items 6 and 7 of 
table 4 to subpart WWWW of part 63, not just to item 8. We agree with 
this comment and have revised table 4 to subpart WWWW of part 63 
accordingly.
    A commenter noted that table 7 to subpart WWWW of part 63 as 
written implied that, for items 1.a and 4.a, it would be permissible to 
use atomized mechanical application. This was not our intent. The 
compliance options in table 7 were intended to provide additional 
flexibility to regulated sources by allowing the use of the same resin 
in different operations. The organic HAP limits based on mechanical 
resin application were all determined using nonatomized spray. 
Therefore, we have added a footnote to items 1.a and 4.a. of table 7 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63 to state that nonatomized resin application is 
required.
    A commenter noted that the language in item 5.a.ii of table 8 to 
subpart WWWW of part 63 implies that all pultrusion machines at 
existing sources must reduce emissions by 60 weight percent, while the 
language in 40 CFR 63.5830(e)(2) states that facilities may demonstrate 
compliance if the weighted average reduction based on resin throughput 
for all machines combined in 60 percent. We have revised item 5.a.ii of 
table 8 to subpart WWWW of part 63 to make the language consistent with 
40 CFR 63.5830(e)(2). We also changed 40 CFR 63.5830(e)(2) to correct a 
spelling error.
    We received several questions concerning the applicability of rule 
requirements to filler putties used to fill gaps or smooth sharp 
corners. We did not specifically investigate these materials in the 
rulemaking. Putties are sometimes made on site using production resin, 
but are also purchased as a separate product. We noted that the NESHAP 
for Boat Manufacturing exempted putties, polyputties, and adhesives 
from any requirements. Because we cannot say with certainty that filler 
putties could meet the emission limits for manual resin application, we 
are amending the rule to exclude putties, polyputties, and adhesives 
from any emission limits. This will make the Reinforced Plastic 
Composites Production NESHAP consistent with the Boat Manufacturing 
NESHAP. However, any emissions from mixing of putties and polyputties 
would be subject to the appropriate mixing emission limits or work 
practices. We do not believe this will result in any change in the 
stringency of the NESHAP for two reasons. First, most facilities use 
very small amounts of putty compared to their use of resin and gel 
coat. Second, the small amount of putty used will have a very small 
surface area relative to the volume and be highly filled, which will 
tend to result in less emissions than a comparable volume of resin or 
gel coat.
    We also have amended Sec. Sec.  63.5900, 63.5910, and 63.5915 of 40 
CFR part 63 to parallel changes in other sections and incorporate 
paragraph referencing changes.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
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.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, 
therefore, not subject to OMB review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
This action adds clarifications and corrections to the final standards. 
However, the OMB has previously approved the information collection 
requirements contained in the existing regulations (68 FR 36982, June 
20, 2003) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0509 (EPA 
ICR No. 1976.02). A copy of the Information Collection Request (ICR) 
may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental 
Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. You also may download 
a copy from the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR 
number in any correspondence.
    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

[[Page 50123]]

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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with the direct final rule 
amendments.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule 
amendments on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. We have determined that the direct final rule amendments will 
not impose any new requirements on small entities. Today's action 
includes direct final rule amendments that resolve inconsistencies, 
clarify language, and add additional compliance flexibility. None of 
the amendments will have any discernable effect on the stringency of 
the rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 direct final rule amendments do 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 direct final rule 
amendments apply only to affected sources in the reinforced plastic 
composites industry and clarify and correct errors in the final rule 
and, therefore, add no additional burden on sources. Thus, the direct 
final rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA.

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 direct final rule amendments do not have federalism 
implications. They 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 
direct final rule amendments are owned by State or local governments. 
Therefore, State and local governments will not have any direct 
compliance costs resulting from the direct final rule amendments. 
Furthermore, the direct final rule amendments do not require these 
governments to take on any new responsibilities. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to the direct final rule amendments.

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 9, 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 direct final rule 
amendments do not have tribal implications as specified in Executive 
Order 13175. They 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 
direct final rule amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to the direct final rule amendments.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the direct 
final rule amendments from tribal officials.

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 EPA has 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

[[Page 50124]]

considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The 
direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because they are based on technology performance and not on health or 
safety risks. They are also not considered ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    The direct final rule amendments do not involve technical 
standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
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 direct final rule amendments and other required information to the 
United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the direct final rule amendments in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. The direct final rule amendments are not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The direct final rule amendments are 
effective on October 24, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 16, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WWWW--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.5790 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (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 Sec.  
63.5935; non-gel coat surface coatings; application of putties, 
polyputties, and adhesives; repair or production materials that do not 
contain resin or gel coat; research and development operations as 
defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA; polymer casting; and closed 
molding operations (except for compression/injection molding). Note 
that the exclusion of certain operations from any requirements applies 
only to operations specifically listed in this paragraph. The 
requirements for any co-located operations still apply.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.5795 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) A reinforced plastic composites production facility is a new 
affected source if it meets all the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) You commence construction of the source after August 2, 2001.
    (2) You commence construction, and no other reinforced plastic 
composites production 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.

0
4. Section 63.5799 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a); and
0
b. Revising the paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.5799  How do I calculate my facility's organic HAP emissions 
on a tpy basis for purposes of determining which paragraphs of Sec.  
63.5805 apply?

* * * * *
    (a) For new facilities prior to startup, calculate a weighted 
average organic HAP emissions factor for the operations specified in 
Sec.  63.5805(c) 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 that would result in less than 100 tpy of 
HAP measured prior to any add-on controls, and can demonstrate that 
they will operate at that level subsequent to the compliance date, they 
can be deemed to be below the 100 tpy threshold.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.5805 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 50125]]

that apply to you. You may elect to comply using any options to meet 
the standards described in Sec. Sec.  63.5810 through 63.5830. Use the 
procedures in Sec.  63.5799 to determine if you meet or exceed the 100 
tpy threshold.
    (a) If you have an existing facility that has any centrifugal 
casting or continuous casting/lamination operations, you must meet the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
    (1) If the combination of all centrifugal casting and continuous 
lamination/casting operations emit 100 tpy or more of HAP, you must 
reduce the total organic HAP emissions from centrifugal casting and 
continuous lamination/casting operations by at least 95 percent by 
weight. As an alternative to meeting the 95 percent by weight 
requirement, centrifugal casting operations may meet the applicable 
organic HAP emissions limits in Table 5 to this subpart and continuous 
lamination/casting operations may meet an 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.
    (2) If the combination of all centrifugal casting and continuous 
lamination/casting operations emit less than 100 tpy of HAP, then 
centrifugal casting and continuous lamination/casting operations must 
meet the appropriate requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (b) All operations at existing facilities not listed in paragraph 
(a) of this section must meet the organic HAP emissions limits in Table 
3 to this subpart and the work practice standards in Table 4 to this 
subpart that apply, regardless of the quantity of HAP emitted.
    (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 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 an 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 paragraph 
(a)(2) or (c) of this section at its 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 one-time exemption from the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) 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 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 Sec.  
63.5799.
    (f) If you apply for an exemption in paragraph (e) of this section 
and subsequently exceed the HAP emission thresholds specified in 
paragraph (a)(2) 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 paragraph 
(a)(1) 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 Sec.  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 
paragraph (a)(1) 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.

0
6. Section 63.5810 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 for open molding or 
centrifugal casting operations in Table 3 or 5 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, using covered curing techniques, 
and routing part or all of your emissions to an add-on control. You may 
use different compliance options for the different operations listed in 
Table 3 or 5 to this subpart. 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 changing to, unless you 
were previously using an option that did not require you to maintain 
records of resin and gel coat use. In this case, you must immediately 
begin collecting resin and gel coat use data and demonstrate compliance 
12 months after changing options.
    (a) Demonstrate that an individual resin or gel coat, as applied, 
meets the applicable emission limit in Table 3 or 5 to this subpart. 
(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 four

[[Page 50126]]

characteristics vary: the neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus organic 
HAP content, the gel coat type, 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 site-specific organic HAP emissions factors discussed in Sec.  
63.5796. The emission factor calculation should include any and all 
emission reduction techniques used including any add-on controls. If 
you are using vapor suppressants to reduce HAP emissions, you must 
determine the vapor suppressant effectiveness (VSE) by conducting 
testing according to the procedures specified in appendix A to subpart 
WWWW of 40 CFR part 63. If you are using an add-on control device to 
reduce HAP emissions, you must determine the add-on control factor by 
conducting capture and control efficiency testing using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.5850. The organic HAP emissions factor calculated 
from the equations in Table 1 to this subpart, or a site-specific 
emissions factor, 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU05.013


Where:
Percent Control Efficiency=a value calculated from organic HAP 
emissions test measurements made according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.5850 to this subpart.

    (2) If the calculated emission factor is less than or equal to the 
appropriate emission limit, you have demonstrated that this process 
stream complies with the emission limit in Table 3 to this subpart. It 
is not necessary that all your process streams, considered 
individually, demonstrate compliance to use this option for some 
process streams. However, for any individual resin or gel coat you use, 
if any of the process streams that include that resin or gel coat are 
to be used in any averaging calculations described in paragraphs (b) 
through (d) of this section, then all process streams using that 
individual resin or gel coat must be included in the averaging 
calculations.
    (b) Demonstrate that, on average, you meet the individual organic 
HAP emissions limits for each combination of operation type and resin 
application method or gel coat type. Demonstrate that on average you 
meet the individual organic HAP emissions limits for each unique 
combination of operation type and resin application method or gel coat 
type shown in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you.
    (1)(i) Group the process streams described in paragraph (a) to this 
section by operation type and resin application method or gel coat type 
listed in Table 3 to this subpart and then calculate a weighted average 
emission factor based on the amounts of each individual resin or gel 
coat used for the last 12 months. 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 corresponds 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 as shown in Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25AU05.014

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.

    (ii) You may, but are not required to, include process streams 
where you have demonstrated compliance as described in paragraph (a) of 
this section, subject to the limitations described in paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section, and you are not required to and should not include 
process streams for which you will demonstrate compliance using the 
procedures in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) Compare each organic HAP emissions factor calculated in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section with its corresponding organic HAP 
emissions limit in Table 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.
    (c) Demonstrate compliance with a weighted average emission limit. 
Demonstrate each month