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

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

Dated: April 10, 2003.

Richard E. Greene,

Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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

PART 52   [ AMENDED]

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

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

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

§ 52.975 Redesignations and maintenance plans; ozone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 3554]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01205]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Release From Quitclaim Deed and Federal Grant Assurance
Obligations at Oxnard Airport, Oxnard, Ventura County, California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request To Release Airport Land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and
invites public comment on the application for a release of
approximately .96 acre of airport property near Oxnard Airport, Oxnard,
Ventura County, California, from all conditions contained in the
Quitclaim Deed and Grant Assurances since the parcel of land is not
needed for airport purposes. The property will be sold for its fair
market value and the proceeds used for airport purposes. The continued
use of the land for agriculture represents a compatible land use that
will not interfere with the airport or its operation, thereby
protecting the interests of civil aviation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on the request may be mailed
or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Tony Garcia, Airports
Compliance Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports
Division, Federal Register Comment, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA
90261. In addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA must
be mailed or delivered to Mr. Todd McNamee, Director, Ventura County
Department of Airports, 555 Airport Way, Camarillo, CA 93010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus
property conveyance deeds or grant agreements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Ventura County, Department of Airports, Camarillo, California
requested a release from the conditions contained in the Quitclaim Deed
and Grant Assurance obligations for approximately .96 acres of airport
land near Oxnard Airport. The property is located northwest of Oxnard
Airport, adjacent to North Victoria Avenue and between Doris Avenue and
Gonzales Road. The property is presently farm land in an agricultural
area. The land will continue to be used for farming. Ventura County
requested approval to sell the small parcel because the land is not
needed for airport purposes and its current agricultural status
prevents other uses. The property is approximately one mile from the
airport boundary and is not suitable for current or future airport
development. The sale price will be based on its appraised market value
and the sale proceeds will be used for airport purposes. The continued
use of the property for farming represents a compatible use that will
not interfere with airport operations. The airport will be properly
compensated, thereby serving the interests of civil aviation.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on January 11, 2016.
Brian Armstrong,
Manager, Safety and Standards, Airports Division, Western-Pacific
Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-01205 Filed 1-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14384-14386]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0157]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Severn River, Sherwood Forest,
MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
for certain waters of the Severn River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Severn
River at Sherwood Forest, MD, during a fireworks display on July 3,
2018 (with alternate date of July 6, 2018). This action would prohibit
persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0157 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On January 16, 2018, the Sherwood Forest Club, Inc. of Sherwood
Forest, MD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a
fireworks display from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on July 3, 2018, to
commemorate the July 4th Holiday. Details of the proposed event were
provided to the Coast Guard on February 15, 2018. The private fireworks
display is to be launched from the end of the Sherwood Forest Club main
pier, located adjacent to the Severn River, approximately 200 yards
east of Brewer Pond in Sherwood Forest, MD. In the event of inclement
weather, the fireworks display will be scheduled for July 6, 2018.
Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other
debris. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this
display would be a safety concern for anyone within 150 yards of the
fireworks discharge site.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons
and vessels on the navigable waters of the Severn River within 150
yards of the fireworks discharge site before, during, and after the
scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018, and if necessary due to inclement weather,
from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2018. The safety zone would
cover all navigable waters of the Severn River, within 150 yards of a
fireworks discharge site located at the end of Sherwood Forest Club
main pier in approximate position latitude 39[deg]01'54.0'' N,
longitude 076[deg]32'41.8'' W, Sherwood Forest, MD. The duration of the
zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons and vessels on the
specified navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:20
p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter
the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would
impact a small designated area of the Severn River for 2 hours during
the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. The Coast Guard will
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band channel 16
to provide information about the safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit vessel
movement within a portion of the Severn River. Normally such actions
are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a)
of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.
01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  [thinsp]165.T05-0157 to read as follows:

Sec.  [thinsp]165.T05-0157   Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Severn
River, Sherwood Forest, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Severn River, within 150 yards of a fireworks discharge site
located at the end of Sherwood Forest Club main pier in approximate
position latitude 39[deg]01'54.0'' N, longitude 076[deg]32'41.8'' W,
located at Sherwood Forest, MD. All coordinates refer to datum NAD
1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcement of the
safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C apply to the safety zone created by this
section.

    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations
governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone
at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.
    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone shall
obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to
transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital
Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted
on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed
by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency
vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator
of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted to
enter the safety zone, all persons and vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital
Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while
within the zone.
    (4) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018, and if necessary due to inclement
weather, from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2018.

    Dated: March 29, 2018.
Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-06851 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 16315-16316]
[DOCID:fr27mr08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 16, 2008, from 8
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Grand Ballroom, Two Montgomery Village Ave.,
Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Michael Bailey, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (HFZ-470), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about
last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site
and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to
learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote
on a premarket approval application for the FC2 Female Condom,
sponsored by the Female Health Co. This device is indicated to help
prevent HIV/AIDS and unintended pregnancy.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after

the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/
ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on the year 2008 and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May
2, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m., and between 3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m.
Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before April 24, 2008. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by April 25, 2008.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Ann Marie Williams,
Conference Management Staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in
advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 20, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-6290 Filed 3-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S