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?