National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing boat manufacturing facilities. The processes regulated include fiberglass resin and gel coat operations, carpet and fabric adhesive operations, and aluminum boat painting operations. The EPA has identified boat manufacturing as a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as styrene, methyl methacrylate (MMA), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), toluene, xylenes, n-hexanes, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane). These proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). We estimate the proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from these facilities by approximately 36 percent from the 1997 level of emissions.

DATES:

Comments. Submit comments on or before September 12, 2000.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by August 3, 2000, a public hearing will be held on August 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES:

Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-44, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Docket. Docket No. A-95-44 contains supporting information used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Morris, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5416, morris.mark@epamail.epa.gov. For public hearing information contact Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all 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 will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Maria Noell to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.

Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect” version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A-95-44. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris, ­c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed NESHAP will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 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.

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

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 section II.A. of this preamble. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Introduction

A. What is the purpose of the proposed NESHAP?

B. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?

C. What are the potential health effects of the HAP emitted by the boat manufacturing industry?

D. How were the proposed NESHAP developed?

E. What processes and operations constitute boat manufacturing?

II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP

A. What sources and operations are subject to the proposed NESHAP?

B. What pollutants are regulated by the proposed NESHAP?

C. What do the proposed NESHAP require?

D. What is the MACT model point value and how is it used in the proposed NESHAP?

E. When must I comply with the proposed NESHAP?

F. How do I demonstrate compliance with the proposed NESHAP?

G. How do I demonstrate compliance if I use an enclosure and an add-on control device?

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What facilities are affected by the proposed NESHAP?

B. What are the air quality impacts?

C. What are the water quality impacts?

D. What are the solid and hazardous waste impacts?

E. What are the energy impacts?

F. What are the cost impacts?

G. What are the economic impacts?

IV. Rationale for the Proposed NESHAP

A. How did EPA determine the source category to regulate?

B. What pollutants are regulated under the proposed NESHAP?

C. What is the “affected source” and how did EPA select the operations to be regulated by the proposed NESHAP?

D. What is a new affected source?

E. How did EPA determine the MACT floor for existing sources?

F. How did EPA determine the MACT floor for new sources?

G. Did EPA consider control options more stringent than the MACT floor?

H. Why are some boat manufacturing operations not being covered by the proposed NESHAP?

I. How did EPA select the format of the proposed NESHAP?

J. How did EPA select the test methods for determining compliance with the proposed NESHAP?

K. How did EPA determine the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements?

L. How did EPA select the notification and reporting requirements?

V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs under the CAA

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

B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart II)

C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart JJ)

D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) NESHAP

E. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and the Proposed Standards

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed NESHAP?

The purpose of the proposed NESHAP is to protect the public health by reducing emissions of HAP from boat manufacturing facilities.

B. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Proposed NESHAP?

The CAA was created, in part, “* * * to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population * * *” (see section 101(b) of the CAA). The proposed NESHAP are consistent with the requirements of the CAA.

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we promulgate regulations for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the regulations to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air-quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology.

We based the proposed NESHAP for boat manufacturing for new and existing sources on the MACT floor control level. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that all major HAP emission sources achieve the level of control already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each category. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

We estimate that major sources in the boat manufacturing source category collectively emit 9,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (9,920 tons per year (tons/yr)) of HAP. A major source of HAP is defined as any stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or more of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr or more (25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP.

In developing MACT, we also must 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, non-air-quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Are the Potential Health Effects of the HAP Emitted by the Boat Manufacturing Industry?

The following is a summary of the potential health and environmental effects associated with exposure, at some level, to emitted pollutants that the proposed NESHAP would reduce.

Styrene. Humans exposed to styrene for short periods through inhalation may exhibit irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal effects. Styrene inhalation over longer periods may cause central nervous system effects including headache, fatigue, weakness, and depression. Exposure may also damage peripheral nerves and cause changes to the kidney and blood. Chronic inhalation studies with animals have indicated that styrene affects the central nervous system, liver, and kidney, and irritates eye and nasal membranes. The EPA has developed a reference concentration of 1 milligram per cubic meter (mg/m ³) for styrene based on central nervous system effects in exposed workers. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. Epidemiological studies have suggested an association between styrene exposure and increased incidence of leukemia and lymphoma. The EPA considers this evidence to be inconclusive because of multiple chemical exposures and inadequate information on the levels and duration of exposure. Animal cancer studies have produced variable results but provide limited evidence for carcinogenicity. The EPA has not classified styrene with respect to carcinogenicity. The EPA is currently reviewing its assessment of styrene.

Methyl methacrylate. Humans exposed to MMA for short periods through inhalation may experience depression of the central nervous system and irritation of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Dermal exposure may cause a severe allergic response. Short-term animal studies have indicated that MMA inhalation damages the liver and lung. Kidney and liver lesions have been observed in humans who ingested MMA over longer periods and in animals exposed either orally or by inhalation. Workers exposed through inhalation have indicated headaches, fatigue, sleeping disturbances, and irritability. Exposed workers have also suffered reproductive effects, including pregnancy complications in women and sexual disorders in both men and women. Fetal abnormalities have been reported in animals exposed to MMA by injection and inhalation. The EPA has developed a reference concentration of 0.7 mg/m ³ for MMA. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. Several animal studies observed no carcinogenic effects. The EPA has classified MMA in Group E, not likely to be carcinogenic in humans.

Methylene chloride. Short-term exposure of humans to high-levels of methylene chloride affects the central nervous system, causing impairment of vision and hearing. These effects are reversible once exposure ceases. Long-term exposure also affects the central nervous system, causing headaches, dizziness, nausea, and memory loss. Studies of methylene chloride exposure to animals have indicated effects to the liver, kidney, and cardiovascular system. Animal studies have indicated that methylene chloride inhalation causes tumors of the lung, liver, and mammary glands. Based on this evidence, EPA has classified methylene chloride in Group B2, a probable human carcinogen, with an inhalation unit risk of 4.7 × 10⁻⁷ per microgram per cubic meter (μg/m³).

Toluene. Humans exposed to toluene for short periods may experience irregular heartbeat and effects to the central nervous system such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea. Repeated exposure to high concentrations may induce loss of coordination, tremors, decreased brain size, and involuntary eye movements, and may impair speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic exposure to toluene in humans has also been indicated to irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and to cause dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. Children exposed to toluene before birth may suffer central nervous system dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor face and limb defects. Inhalation of toluene by pregnant women may increase the risk of spontaneous abortion. The EPA has developed a reference concentration of 0.4 mg/m³ for toluene. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. No data exist that suggest toluene is carcinogenic. The EPA has classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Xylenes. Short-term inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three closely related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye irritation, and neurological effects. Long-term inhalation of xylenes in humans may result in central nervous system effects such as headache, dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other reported effects include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest pain, abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the blood and kidneys. Developmental effects have been indicated from xylene exposure via inhalation in animals. Not enough information exists to determine the carcinogenic potential of mixed xylenes. The EPA has classified xylenes in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

n-Hexane. Short-term inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of n-hexane causes mild central nervous system depression. Dermal exposure may cause irritation of the skin and mucous membrane. The nervous system effects include dizziness, giddiness, slight nausea, and headache in humans, with numbness in the extremities, muscular weakness, blurred vision, headache, and fatigue observed. Neurotoxic effects have also been exhibited in rats. Mild inflammatory and degenerative lesions in the nasal cavity have been observed in rodents chronically exposed through inhalation. The reference concentration for hexane is 0.2 mg/m³. The EPA estimates that inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would not likely result in the occurrence of chronic noncancer effects. No information is available on the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals. The EPA has classified hexane as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Short-term inhalation exposure to MEK in humans may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, and cause central nervous system depression. Limited information is available on long-term effects of MEK exposure to humans, but chronic inhalation studies in animals have indicated effects on the central nervous system, liver, and respiratory system. The EPA's reference concentration for MEK is 1 mg/m³, based on decreased fetal birth weight in mice. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. Limited data exist on carcinogenic effects of MEK. The EPA has classified MEK in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Short-term exposure to MIBK may irritate the eyes and mucous membranes, and cause weakness, headache, and nausea. Long-term exposure by workers has been observed to cause nausea, headache, burning eyes, insomnia, intestinal pain, and slight enlargement of the liver. No information is available on reproductive or developmental effects of MIBK in humans, but studies with rats and mice have indicated neurological effects and increased liver and kidney weights. The EPA has not established a reference concentration or classified MIBK with respect to carcinogenicity.

1,1,1-trichloroethane. Short-term inhalation exposure of humans to 1,1,1-trichloroethane causes mild hepatic effects, central nervous system depression, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of consciousness, and decreased blood pressure. Cardiac arrhythmia and respiratory arrest may result from the depression of the central nervous system. After long-term inhalation exposure to 1,1,1-trichloroethane, some liver damage was observed in mice and ventricular arrhythmias in humans. The reference concentration for 1,1,1-trichloroethane is under review by EPA. The EPA has classified 1,1,1-trichloroethane as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, based on no reported human data and inadequate animal data.

D. How Were the Proposed NESHAP Developed?

We consulted many representatives of the boat manufacturing industry, State and Federal representatives, and material and equipment vendors in developing the proposed NESHAP. We held a series of approximately 50 stakeholder meetings over a period of nearly 4 years. These meetings were held to keep stakeholders informed and to solicit data and information on issues relevant to the NESHAP development. Stakeholders helped in data gathering, arranged site visits, and reviewed questionnaires. Stakeholders also shared data, identified issues and provided information to help resolve issues in the rulemaking process.

We identified the MACT floor control level with information obtained through questionnaire responses, site visits, telephone contacts, and operating permits.

E. What Processes and Operations Constitute Boat Manufacturing?

The proposed NESHAP regulate fiberglass and aluminum boat manufacturing operations. The emissions from these boat manufacturing operations and processes are fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions result from HAP evaporating from the resins, gel coats, solvents, adhesives, and surface coatings used in manufacturing processes.

The following is a brief description of these processes and operations found at boat manufacturing facilities: fiberglass boat manufacturing operations; fabric and carpet adhesive operations; and aluminum boat surface coating operations.

Fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. Fiberglass boats are built from glass fiber reinforcements laid in a mold and saturated with a polyester or vinylester plastic resin. The resin hardens to form a rigid plastic part reinforced with the fiberglass. The resin is mixed with a catalyst as it is applied that causes a cross-linking reaction between the resin molecules. The cross-linking reaction causes the resin to harden from a liquid to a solid.

Fiberglass manufacturing processes are generally considered either “open molding” or “closed molding.” In open molding, fiberglass boat parts are built “from the outside in” according to three basic process steps:

(1) The mold is sprayed with a layer of gel coat, which is a pigmented polyester resin that hardens and becomes the smooth outside surface of the part.

(2) The inside of the hardened gel coat layer is coated with a “skin coat” of chopped glass fibers and polyester or vinylester resin.

(3) Additional layers of fiberglass cloth or chopped glass fibers saturated with resin are added until the part is the final thickness.

The same basic process is used to build or repair molds with tooling gel coat and tooling resin.

In closed molding, the resin is applied to fabric placed between the halves of a two-piece mold. Three basic types of closed molding used in boat manufacturing are resin infusion molding, resin transfer molding (RTM), and compression molding with sheet molding compound (SMC).

The polyester and vinylester resins that are used in fiberglass boat manufacturing contain styrene as a solvent and a cross-linking agent. Gel coats also contain MMA as a solvent, and styrene. Styrene and MMA are HAP, and a fraction evaporates during resin and gel coat application and curing. Resins and gel coats containing styrene and MMA are also used to make the molds used in producing fiberglass parts.

Mixing is done to stir the resin or gel coat and promoters, fillers, or other additives before being applied to the parts. Some HAP from the resin and gel coat are emitted during the mixing process.

Resin and gel coat application equipment requires solvent cleaning to remove uncured resin or gel coat when not in use. The resin or gel coat will catalyze in the hoses or gun if not flushed with a solvent after each use.

Fabric and carpet adhesive operations. The interiors of many types of fiberglass boats and aluminum boats are covered with carpeting or fabric to improve the appearance, provide traction, or deaden sound. The material is bonded to the interior with contact adhesives. The HAP-containing solvents, such as methylene chloride, toluene, xylenes, and methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), are used in these adhesives. The solvents evaporate as the adhesives dry.

Aluminum boat surface coatings. Aluminum boat hull topsides and decks are painted with coatings applied with spray guns. These coatings may be high-gloss polyurethane coatings or low-gloss single-part coatings. These surface coatings often contain HAP solvents, such as toluene, xylenes, and isocyanates.

The HAP-containing solvents are also used to clean surfaces before finishing (wipe-down solvents) and for cleaning paint and coating spray guns.

II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP

This preamble section discusses the proposed NESHAP as they apply to “you,” the owner or operator of a new or existing boat manufacturing facility.

A. What Sources and Operations Are Subject to the Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP would regulate HAP from major sources that manufacture fiberglass boats or noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum boats. Coating operations on aluminum commercial and military vessels are covered by the shipbuilding and repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II).

The proposed NESHAP apply to fiberglass boat manufacturers making all sizes and types of fiberglass boats using the operations listed below:

• All open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat.
• All closed molding resin operations.
• All resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning.
• All resin and gel coat mixing operations.
• All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.

The proposed NESHAP apply to aluminum boat manufacturing facilities performing the operations listed below:

• All aluminum boat surface coatings and associated spray gun cleaning and wipe-down solvent operations.
• All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.

B. What Pollutants are Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP regulate the total HAP content in the materials used in each regulated operation. The proposed NESHAP do not set limits for individual species of HAP. The HAP emitted by boat manufacturing facilities typically include styrene, MMA, toluene, xylenes, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), MEK, n-hexane, and MIBK. However, the total HAP content limit includes all HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA.

C. What Do the Proposed NESHAP Require?

The proposed NESHAP have various formats for the different operations being regulated. For open molding resin and gel coat operations, you must comply with a HAP emission limit that is calculated for your facility using MACT model point value equations, which are described in section II.D., for each open molding operation.

You can demonstrate compliance with the HAP emissions limit for your facility either by (1) averaging emissions with the MACT model point value equations, (2) complying with equivalent material HAP content requirements for each type of open molding operation, or (3) using an add-on control device. The HAP emissions limit and equivalent HAP content requirements are the same for new and existing sources. You may use averaging for all of your open molding operations or only for some of them. For those operations not included in the emissions average, you must comply with one of the alternative provisions.

For resin operations, different HAP content requirements apply to atomized and nonatomized resin application methods. The HAP content requirements for open molding are presented in table 2 of the proposed NESHAP. If you use an add-on control device to meet the emissions limit, the emissions limit is calculated using the MACT model point value operations and is in units of kilograms (kg) of HAP per megagram (1000 kg) of resin or gel coat consumed.

As stated above, you may use a combination of compliance options for the different resin and gel coat operations within your facility. For example, a hull production line may use several resins and gel coats. The skin coat resin may comply with the HAP content requirements, while you may decide to use the averaging approach to comply by averaging between the laminating resin and production gel coats. In another example, you could include in the average all production resins and pigmented gel coats at your facility, but decide not to include clear gel coat, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat. You could also use averaging to use a mix of atomized and nonatomized resin application methods but at different HAP contents from those in table 2 of the proposed NESHAP.

Other operations regulated by the proposed NESHAP would be subject to work practice requirements or HAP content limits. Resin and gel coat mixing containers with a capacity of 208 liters (55 gallons) or more must be covered. Routine resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations must use zero-HAP solvents, but solvents used to remove cured resin or gel coat from equipment would be exempt. The containers used to hold the exempt solvent and to soak the equipment with cured resin and gel coat must be covered. Carpet and fabric adhesive operations must use zero-HAP adhesives. Aluminum boat wipedown solvents and surface coatings would be subject to HAP content limits. Aluminum boat spray gun cleaning operations would be subject to a work practice requirement. The NESHAP for these operations are the same for new and existing sources. The proposed NESHAP have no averaging compliance options for these operations. Today's proposed NESHAP contain the specific requirements for each operation regulated by this proposal.

Compliance with all of the emissions limits in the proposed NESHAP are based on a 3-month rolling average except when an add-on control device is used. At the end of every month, you determine compliance for each operation based on the HAP content and material consumption data collected over the past 3 months. When an add-on control device is used, compliance is determined through a one-time test and subsequent monitoring.

D. What Is the MACT Model Point Value and How Is It Used In the Proposed NESHAP?

The MACT model point value is a number calculated for each open molding operation and is a surrogate for emissions. The MACT model point value is a way to rank the relative performance of different resin and gel coat emissions reduction techniques. This approach allows you to create control strategies using different resin and gel coat emissions reduction techniques. The proposed NESHAP provide equations to calculate MACT model point values based on HAP content and application method for each material that you use. These MACT model point values are then averaged and compared to limits in the proposed NESHAP to determine if your open molding operations are in compliance.

The MACT model point values have units of kilograms of HAP per megagram of resin or gel coat applied. It is important to note that the MACT model point values are surrogates for emissions, and the MACT model point value equations are used only for determining compliance with the emissions limit for open molding operations. The MACT model point value equations should not be used in other environmental programs for estimating emissions in place of true emission factor equations.

The MACT model point value equations account only for HAP content and application method. Other factors (including curing time, part thickness, and operator technique) can have significant effects on emissions, and these factors are not accounted for in the MACT model point value equations. Determining the HAP content of materials and the method of application is relatively easy, but it is difficult to determine the other factors. Therefore, these factors are not included in the MACT model point value equations.

E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed NESHAP?

Existing boat manufacturing facilities must comply within 3 years of the date the promulgated NESHAP are published in the Federal Register. New sources that commence construction after today's date must comply immediately upon startup or by the promulgation date, whichever is later.

F. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed NESHAP?

Unless you are using an add-on control device, you must measure and record the HAP contents of all the materials regulated by the proposed NESHAP. You may determine HAP content using EPA Method 311, but you may also use documentation provided by the material manufacturer, such as a material safety data sheet (MSDS) or HAP data sheet to show compliance. Although you may use either EPA Method 311 or the manufacturer's documentation to show compliance, EPA will use EPA Method 311 results to determine compliance if they differ from the manufacturer's documentation.

Compliance with the HAP content limits is based on the weighted-average HAP content for each material on a 3-month rolling-average basis. Compliance is determined at the end of every month (12 times per year) based on the past 3 months of data. To determine weighted-average HAP content, you will also need to monitor and record the amount of each regulated material used per month, as well as HAP content.

If all of the material in a particular operation meets the applicable HAP content limit, then you would not need to record the amount of material used. Likewise, you would not need to perform and record any calculations to determine weighted-average HAP content.

For open molding resin and gel coat operations, how you show compliance will depend on which compliance option you choose. For example, if you choose to average among several open molding resin and gel coat operations, you will have greater operating flexibility, but you will also need to do more recordkeeping and calculations to show compliance than if you comply with the HAP content limits. Also, you must complete an implementation plan for the open molding operations at your facility that are included in an averaging option. The implementation plan must describe the resin and gel coat materials you plan to use, their HAP contents, and how you will apply those materials so that you are in compliance. The plan must also include calculations showing that your choice of materials and application methods will achieve compliance.

You must keep records of the HAP content of all materials that are subject to HAP content limits. You must also keep records of the amount of material used and any calculations you perform to determine compliance using weighted-average HAP contents or the averaging option for open molding operations. Every month, you must inspect the covers required by the work practice standards for resin and gel coat mixing containers and aluminum boat coating spray gun cleaners. You must also keep records of the results of these inspections and any repairs made to the covers. All records must be kept for 5 years (at least the last 2 years of records must be kept onsite).

Today's proposed NESHAP contain the specific monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for each operation regulated by this proposal.

G. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance If I Use an Enclosure and an Add-On Control Device?

If you use an enclosure (such as a spray booth) and add-on control, you must use EPA Method 204 to prove that the enclosure is a total enclosure. If the enclosure is not a total enclosure, you must use a temporary enclosure to measure the fugitive emissions from the enclosure and the control device. Stack testing is used to determine compliance with the emissions limit. You must use either EPA Method 25A to measure emissions as total hydrocarbons (as a surrogate for total HAP) or EPA Method 18 for specific HAP.

During and after the initial performance test, you must monitor and record certain control device parameters to ensure that the control device continues to be operated as it was during the test. For example, for thermal oxidizers, you must monitor and record combustion temperature and maintain the temperature above an allowable minimum value. The monitoring requirements for several add-on control devices (including absorbers, adsorbers, and condensers) are contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, and are referenced in the proposed NESHAP. For other control devices not listed in subpart SS, you must identify parameters that demonstrate proper control device operation and have these parameters approved by the EPA. Monitored operating parameters must be kept within the allowable ranges to demonstrate compliance with the control device operating requirements.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Facilities Are Affected by the Proposed NESHAP?

There are approximately 119 existing facilities manufacturing fiberglass boats or aluminum boats that are major sources and would be subject to the proposed NESHAP. The rate of growth for the boat manufacturing industry is estimated to be five new facilities per year for the next 5 years.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

The 1997 baseline emissions from the boat manufacturing industry are approximately 9,000 Mg/yr (9,920 tons/yr). The proposed NESHAP would reduce HAP from existing sources by 3,220 Mg/yr (3,550 tons/yr) from the baseline level, a reduction of 36 percent. Table 2 shows the amount of HAP reduced by each type of operation.

The proposed NESHAP will not result in any increase in other air pollution emissions. While combustion devices can result in increased sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions, we do not expect anyone to comply by installing new combustion devices during the next 5 years.

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?

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

D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?

We estimate that the proposed NESHAP will decrease the amount of solid waste generated by the boat manufacturing industry by approximately 360 Mg/yr (400 tons/yr). The decrease in solid waste is directly related to switching to nonatomized resin application equipment (i.e., flowcoaters and resin rollers). Switching to flowcoaters results in a decrease in overspray because of a greater transfer efficiency of resin from flowcoaters to the part being manufactured. A decrease in resin overspray consequently reduces the amount of waste from disposable floor coverings, cured resin waste, and personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers. Disposable floor coverings are replaced on a periodic basis to prevent resin buildup on the floor. We estimate that solid waste generation of floor coverings will decrease by approximately 320 Mg/yr (350 tons/yr), and that cured resin solid waste will decrease by approximately 45 Mg/yr (50 tons/yr).

Decreased overspray from flowcoaters will result in a decreased usage of PPE, which also consequently reduces the amount of solid waste. Workers who use flowcoaters typically wear less PPE than when using spray guns because of the reduced presence of resin aerosols and lower styrene levels in the workplace. Because we did not have information on the many different types of PPE currently used, we did not estimate this decrease in solid waste.

Some facilities that switch from spray guns to flowcoaters may have a small increase of hazardous waste from the used flowcoater cleaning solvents. However, most facilities will not see an increase, and the overall impact on the industry will be small relative to the solid waste reductions. Nearly all flowcoaters require resin and catalyst to be mixed inside the gun (internal-mix) and must be flushed when work is stopped for more than a few minutes. External-mix spray guns do not need to be flushed because resin is mixed with catalyst outside the gun. Facilities that switch from external-mix spray guns to flowcoaters will use more solvent. Solvent usage should not change at facilities switching from internal-mix spray guns to flowcoaters.

The most common flushing solvents are acetone and water-based emulsifiers. Only a couple of ounces of solvent are typically needed to flush the mixing chamber and nozzle of flowcoaters and internal-mix spray guns. We have observed during site visits that this small quantity of solvent is usually sprayed into the air or onto the floor coverings and allowed to evaporate.

The EPA does not have adequate data to predict the potential solvent waste impact from switching to flowcoaters. The magnitude of the impact depends on the type of gun currently used (internal- or external-mix), the frequency of flushing, and the type of solvent used. However, because of the small amount of solvent used, and since most is allowed to evaporate, we believe the overall solvent waste increase will be small compared to the solid waste reductions.

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

We estimate that energy consumption for new and existing facilities will not increase. No new or existing facilities are expected to install add-on control devices to comply with the proposed NESHAP in the first 5 years after promulgation. One facility currently uses a thermal oxidizer to control some of their styrene and MMA emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. No increase in energy use is anticipated to comply with the proposed NESHAP.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

We estimate that nationwide annual compliance costs for the existing facilities will be $14 million. This estimate includes annualized capital costs and increased material costs for purchasing more expensive, lower-HAP materials. Annual costs also include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. The estimated annual cost of reduced HAP is $4,350/Mg ($3,950/ton).

Table 3 shows the estimated costs to reduce emissions from the operations at the 119 major source boat manufacturing facilities regulated by the proposed NESHAP.

The capital costs would be for purchase of new resin application equipment, resin mixer covers, and adhesive application equipment. The estimated cost of new resin application equipment (flowcoaters) is $6,000 per unit (includes flowcoater, hoses, and resin and catalyst pumps). The estimated cost of new adhesive application equipment is also approximately $6,000 per unit. The resin and gel coat mixer covers will be approximately $180 per year per container.

No capital costs are predicted for mold construction or aluminum boat surface coating operations.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The EPA prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the primary and secondary impacts of the proposed NESHAP on the boat manufacturing market, consumers, and society. Because the characteristics of boats vary greatly throughout the industry, we evaluated the market by assessing the impacts on six separate market segments of the industry, including: outboard boats, inboard runabouts/sterndrive, inboard cruisers/yachts, jet boats/personal watercraft, sailboats, and canoes. The total annualized social cost (in 1994 dollars) of the proposed NESHAP on the industry is $13.0 million, which is 0.2 percent of total baseline revenue. Generally, the analysis indicates a minimal change in market prices and quantity of boats sold. Imports will increase negligibly, with a corresponding decrease in exports. The analysis also suggests a loss (at the maximum) of 48 employees out of the 51,500 employees in the industry. The impacts on specific market segments are summarized in the table below.

The analysis also predicts the number of facilities that would close as a result of the cost of complying with the proposed NESHAP. The EPA used market level information on total predicted change in quantity to infer how many plants would close if the quantity decrease was borne entirely by one (or more) facility. For example, if the market analysis predicts that 1,000 fewer boats are produced and the average facility produces 500 boats, then the impact is equivalent to two facility closures. Using this approach, the predicted reduction in quantity did not equal even one facility closure in any of the six market segments. While this does not mean that no facilities will close as a result of the proposed NESHAP, it does indicate that the proposed NESHAP have minimal total impacts, and that any facility closure will likely be the result of poor baseline cost conditions rather than a direct result of the compliance burden.

IV. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP

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

The proposed NESHAP applies to fiberglass boat and aluminum boat manufacturing facilities that are located at major sources of HAP. Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to list each category of major source emitting any HAP listed in section 112(b). Boat manufacturing (major sources only) was included on the initial list of source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The initial notice of the source category list stated that we would refine category descriptions during the rulemaking process, based on additional information available.

We redefined the category to include aluminum boat manufacturing facilities (64 FR 63025, November 18, 1999). The initial source category definition included only fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. We added aluminum boat manufacturing facilities to the source category because many of these facilities are major sources of HAP. Aluminum boats are defined as noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum boats. Aluminum commercial and military boats are not included in the source category because the HAP-emitting process in the construction of these boats (surface coatings) is regulated by the shipbuilding and repair NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart II).

B. What Pollutants Are Regulated Under the Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP regulate total HAP, rather than individual HAP compounds. A standard for total HAP simplifies compliance and enforcement, compared with standards for individual HAP compounds. Moreover, the proposed NESHAP will affect the formulation of chemical products used by the industry. It is not reasonable to regulate the content of individual constituents in these complex mixtures. Styrene is the HAP emitted in the largest magnitude (about 87 percent of emissions). Other HAP emitted from boat manufacturing facilities include MMA, methylene chloride (dichloromethane), toluene, xylenes, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), n-hexane, and MIBK.

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

The affected source is the combination of all regulated operations at a single boat manufacturing facility. The following regulated operations are typically performed at fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities and are part of the affected source:

• Open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat;
• Closed molding resin operations;
• Resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations; and
• Resin and gel coat mixing operations.

Carpet and fabric adhesive operations are performed at both fiberglass boat and aluminum boat manufacturing facilities and are part of the affected source at those facilities.

The following regulated operations are typically performed at aluminum boat manufacturing facilities and are part of the affected source:

• Aluminum wipedown solvent operations;
• Aluminum boat surface coating operations; and
• Aluminum coating spray gun cleaning operations.

These are the typical operations found at fiberglass boat and aluminum boat manufacturing facilities, and we were able to determine MACT for these operations. If a single facility manufactures both aluminum boat and fiberglass boats, the facility is a single affected source.

Mold sealing and release agents, mold stripping and cleaning solvents, solvents used to clean cured resin and gel coat from application equipment, wood coatings, fiberglass hull and deck coatings, and antifoulant coatings are not covered by the proposed NESHAP. See section IV.H. for the rationale for why these operations are not regulated by the proposed NESHAP.

We defined the affected source as the combination of all of these operations at a site to provide compliance flexibility. This broad source definition allows a manufacturer to determine compliance by averaging the HAP content of different products used throughout the facility within certain defined operations, and to use different application techniques as needed to meet product quality specifications. This approach is consistent with the way that the HAP content and application data were analyzed to determine the MACT floor.

D. What Is a New Affected Source?

A new affected source is any fiberglass boat or aluminum boat manufacturing facility that meets both of these criteria:

• It began construction after today's date, and
• It is a new fiberglass or aluminum boat manufacturing operation at a site that does not presently contain any boat manufacturing operations.

We selected this broad definition of new source for two reasons. First, the MACT for new and existing sources is the same, so there is no difference in emission control requirements for new and existing sources. Second, we concluded that it would be unreasonably costly to demonstrate compliance separately for both new and existing source operations that are located at the same site. Because the equipment is easily portable, it can be difficult to define exactly what would constitute a new line or operation. Also, it would be burdensome to monitor and record equipment and material usage for separate operations that were considered new and existing because the equipment is portable, and material is often dispensed from centralized bulk storage containers.

Although some sources might be required to achieve compliance earlier under a narrower new source definition, the small emissions reductions do not justify the additional long-term compliance burden.

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

We determined separate MACT floors for each type of boat manufacturing operation based on data collected from about one-half of the major source boat manufacturers. We received data through questionnaire responses from 54 fiberglass and 13 aluminum boat manufacturers, site visits to 10 boat manufacturers (9 fiberglass and 1 aluminum), and through telephone contacts and operating permits for several more boat manufacturers. The data collected from the fiberglass boat manufacturers represent both large and small companies, as well as power and sailboat manufacturers who build vessels ranging in size from small runabouts to large, luxury yachts. Therefore, we believe the data are representative of the fiberglass boat industry segment. Our database also includes all the major source aluminum boat manufacturers known to us; therefore, the database also accurately represents this industry segment.

Using the data collected from boat manufacturers, we determined separate existing source MACT floors for each type of boat manufacturing operation (e.g., open molding operations, carpet and fabric adhesives operations). For each operation, the facilities were ranked from lowest to highest emitting. Emissions were computed as a facilitywide average for each operation to account for the variety of materials within each operation that are required to construct a boat. For open molding resin operations (production and tooling), we estimated the HAP using the MACT model point value equations. This approach takes into account the combined effect of application method and the HAP content of the resins used, but is not an estimate of actual HAP to the atmosphere.

To determine MACT floors for the production resin operations, we evaluated open molding and closed molding as separate types of emission sources. Closed molding is a lower-emitting operation than open molding, but at this time has not been demonstrated to be generally applicable for all types of boats. Boat manufacturers typically use closed molding to achieve specific product qualities, such as two finished sides, higher fiber-to-resin ratios, or higher production levels that cannot be achieved with open molding. Therefore, closed molding operations were not used in setting the MACT floor for open molding.

Also, we determined MACT floors separately for fiberglass and aluminum boat manufacturers because the regulated operations at these facilities differ. The one exception was for carpet and fabric adhesive operations, where the MACT floor analysis was based on a combined data set. Fiberglass and aluminum boat manufacturers both have carpet and fabric adhesive operations and use the same adhesives.

We determined MACT floors based on the median facility of the lowest-emitting 12 percent for production resin, pigmented gel coat, tooling resin, tooling gel coat, resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning and carpet and fabric adhesives. For clear gel coat, closed molding resin, aluminum boat surface coatings, aluminum coating spray gun cleaning operations, and aluminum wipe-down solvents, we used the median of the five lowest-emitting facilities because we had data on fewer than 30 sources. We selected the median facility rather than the arithmetic average of the lowest-emitting facilities in order to represent the performance of an actual facility.

A more detailed summary of the results of the MACT floor analysis, the data and the considerations used to determine the MACT floors for the boat manufacturing source category can be found in Docket No. A-95-44.

F. How Did EPA Determine the MACT Floor for New Sources?

We believe that the existing source MACT floor also represents the new source floor. The existing source MACT floor represents the greatest degree of emissions reductions that is achievable under all circumstances within each particular operation regulated by the proposed NESHAP.

For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floor to be based on the degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. A variety of chemical materials and application methods are available for each operation within the boat manufacturing source category. The suitability of these materials and methods depends on several product and manufacturing requirements. These requirements typically include part size and shape, strength, durability, production volume and schedule, product mix, color, and worker safety.

Therefore, an emission control option (e.g., HAP content and application method) that is applicable at one facility with a particular mix of these requirements may not be applicable at another facility with different requirements. While some facilities are using lower-HAP materials and techniques than represented by the existing source MACT floor, we do not believe that the lowest-emitting options are universally applicable to all new boat manufacturers. Sometimes, the lower-HAP materials are used to produce particular colors and geometric shapes that do not represent the range of boats that are manufactured. Accordingly, the lowest-HAP-emitting facilities may not be using materials or techniques that can be used by new sources in all circumstances.

Some facilities do use the lower-HAP materials or techniques for particular products. However, we have no data to precisely define the particular combination of requirements where these lower-emitting options can be used and still maintain the minimum required strength and durability requirements of these products. These facilities, consequently, do not represent the new source MACT floor, and we are unable to establish subcategories for purposes of determining a more stringent MACT floor for new sources. The existing source MACT floor level of control is universally applicable to all boat manufacturers because it has been demonstrated at several different facilities that produce a range of products that represent the industry, and that use different combinations of materials and methods to achieve the emissions reductions. Therefore, the existing source MACT floor is achievable by all new sources and also represents the new source floor.

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

Because no control options more stringent than the MACT floor are feasible for new and existing sources, we have determined that MACT for new and existing sources is the MACT floor level of control. We considered three potential options for MACT that might be more stringent than the MACT floors, but found that these options were not achievable. The options we considered were lower-HAP materials, zero-HAP materials and add-on control devices. The following analysis applies equally to new and existing source MACT.

As noted in the discussion of the new source MACT floor in the previous section, some facilities use materials with HAP contents lower than the new and existing source MACT floor. However, as also noted in that discussion, EPA does not have the data to define subcategories in which these lower-HAP materials can be used. Therefore, these lower-HAP materials are not a viable option more stringent than the MACT floor for new or existing sources.

For carpet and fabric adhesives, as well as resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning solvents, the new and existing source MACT floor is zero-HAP materials. In these two cases, zero-HAP materials are also MACT for new and existing sources because no more stringent level of control is achievable.

For the other operations regulated by the proposed NESHAP, no zero-HAP substitutes are currently available. No zero-HAP substitutes for polyester and vinylester resins or gel coats have been demonstrated for large-scale production boat manufacturing. The zero-HAP alternatives for aluminum wipe-down solvents, such as acetone, are too volatile and flammable for this operation. No waterborne coatings or powder coatings have been demonstrated as substitutes for the solvent-borne coatings currently used in aluminum boat surface coating operations.

We also evaluated add-on control devices. We are aware of one facility using a thermal oxidizer to control HAP from resin and gel coat operations in the manufacture of small jet boats. Thermal oxidizers are generally effective controls for HAP emission sources.

The experience of the jet boat facility with thermal oxidation suggests that thermal oxidation has not been effectively demonstrated as a control option for boat manufacturing. During the MACT analysis, no emission test data were available to us or to the State permitting authority to confirm the performance of this control device. Also, after several years of operation, the facility had not received an operating permit with an enforceable emission limit and was still operating under an extension of their construction permit.

Moreover, the facility with the thermal oxidizer uses restricted airflow to capture concentrated HAP near the surface of the molds. The restricted airflow management is feasible at this facility because the facility is dedicated to the construction of only two models of small jet boats, 4.4 and 5.5 meters (14.5 and 18 feet, respectively) long. The restricted airflow management was implemented with the intention to use robotics to apply some of the resin and gel coat.

The restricted airflow management as practiced at this facility would not be suitable for other facilities in the industry. All other facilities produce a variety of products and parts and must have the operational flexibility to change product mix over time. Restricted airflow management would not be feasible in operations where workers apply the resin and gel coat, and a range of different types of boats are produced.

Accordingly, we have concluded that thermal oxidizers have not been demonstrated for this industry. While theoretically feasible, we have no data to demonstrate the cost or the effectiveness of the thermal oxidizer at the air flow rates and HAP concentrations that exist at typical boat manufacturing plants.

H. Why Are Some Boat Manufacturing Operations Not Being Covered by the Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP would not regulate the following operations:

• Mold sealing and release agents;
• Mold stripping and cleaning solvents;
• Solvents used to clean cured resin and gel coat from application equipment;
• Wood coatings;
• Fiberglass hull and deck coatings; and
• Antifoulant coatings.

We excluded wood finishing operations, fiberglass hull and deck coating operations, and antifoulant coating (bottom coating) operations because they are performed only by a relatively small percentage of boat manufacturers and are not typical of the majority of major source boat manufacturers. These three operations collectively account for about only 0.5 percent of HAP from major source boat manufacturers.

The proposed NESHAP would not regulate mold sealing and release agents and mold stripping and cleaning solvents because we were unable to set MACT floors or determine MACT for these operations. In both cases, the information and data available to us suggest that mold maintenance practices, part shape and size, and production schedules determine emissions more than the HAP content of these materials. The EPA does not have sufficient data to identify and prescribe work practices to reduce emissions from these operations. Therefore, the proposed NESHAP do not regulate these materials. A more detailed explanation of why we could not determine the MACT is in Docket No. A-95-44. These two operations collectively emit less than 1 percent of HAP from boat manufacturing.

Most boat manufacturers in our database use mold sealing and release agents that contain only a small percentage of HAP (less than 10 percent HAP) sold by two suppliers. Boat manufacturers use the same group of products but in different amounts leading to differences in facilitywide average HAP. Differences among facilities are probably due to differences in facility-specific work practices that are dictated by production requirements, such as mold cycle time and frequency, the size and shape of parts, and mold maintenance. We do not have sufficient data to identify the MACT floor or MACT based on differences in work practices among facilities.

Mold stripping and cleaning solvents are not regulated by the proposed NESHAP because we do not have sufficient data to determine a MACT floor. The amount of HAP used per unit of mold surface area applied depends on facility-specific mold maintenance practices and production requirements. These may include mold cycle time, how often the mold is used, and even whether the mold is stored indoors or outdoors. The size of the part may also influence mold maintenance. We do not have sufficient data to identify those differences in production requirements or work practices that determine mold cleaning solvent usage. Therefore, we cannot identify a MACT floor or MACT.

We are not regulating solvents used for cleaning cured resin or gel coat from application equipment because we know of no emission controls. Cured resin or gel coat inside a gun is usually the result of operator error or an equipment failure. To clean cured resin and gel coat, an aggressive solvent is needed and no low-HAP alternatives are available. The equipment is usually soaked in a covered bucket resulting in little evaporation of the solvent. The amount of solvent needed per year is determined by the size of the facility, degree of operator error, and equipment failure rates. Because operator error and equipment failure are hard to predict, we could determine no basis for an annual limit of solvent usage that would be achievable by all facilities. The proposed NESHAP, therefore, allow HAP-containing solvents only for cleaning cured resin and gel coat from the application equipment. The use of HAP-containing solvents for routine gun flushing is prohibited.

I. How Did EPA Select the Format of the Proposed NESHAP?

We decided to offer several formats for complying with the proposed NESHAP. The purpose of multiple formats is to provide the flexibility to comply in the most cost effective and efficient manner. We considered the following factors in selecting the format of the proposed NESHAP:

• The format must allow for multiple compliance techniques for the various types of facilities in the industry.
• The format must simplify compliance and ensure that the cost of compliance is not excessive.
• The format must be enforceable.

The format of the proposed NESHAP is based on a combination of HAP content limits, equipment standards, and work practice standards. Section 112(h) of the CAA states that “* * * if it is not feasible in the judgement of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof * * *.” Section 112(h)(2) further defines the phrase “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” as any situation in which “* * * a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant, * * * or the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable * * *.”

In general, numerical emission limits are not feasible to prescribe or enforce. Most boat manufacturing operations occur in large buildings where emissions are released to the atmosphere through general building ventilation, windows, and doors. These emission points have high air volumes and low HAP concentrations that would pose unreasonably high costs to capture the emissions. Some coating operations are carried out in spray booths that are vented through a single stack, but these emissions also have high air volumes and low HAP concentrations. Therefore, the most reasonable format for these situations is to specify HAP content limits for materials, application equipment requirements, and work practices to minimize emissions.

The formats of the proposed NESHAP include both numerical emission limits and work practice/equipment standards (HAP content limits and application equipment requirements). We included both types of formats so boat manufacturers could choose to comply using either averaging provisions, low-HAP materials and alternative application equipment, or add-on controls. However, very few boat manufacturers will probably choose to comply with emission limit controls because it is not practical to capture the emissions for use with add-on controls.

The following subsections describe the selection of the formats for each type of limit included in the proposed NESHAP.

HAP Content Limits for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Operations. The proposed NESHAP for open molding operations, resin and gel coat equipment cleaning solvents, and carpet and fabric adhesives include weight-percent HAP content limits for these materials. The HAP content is an accurate measure of the relative emission potential of materials. The HAP content is already reported on the material safety data sheet for each material. Therefore, HAP content can simplify compliance by allowing you to purchase compliant materials. If you add HAP to your materials before use, you must include the additional HAP in your HAP content calculations; do not include HAP catalysts used for resins and gel coats in the HAP content calculation.

Emission Averaging Using Kilogram of HAP per Megagram of Material Applied. The proposed NESHAP for open molding operations include a HAP emissions limit that is kilogram of HAP per megagram of material applied. This format is used in the emissions averaging compliance option. This format was selected to provide compliance flexibility by allowing you to use varying HAP content materials and different application techniques in the open molding operations and average the emissions using the MACT model point value equations described in section II.D. The averaging approach will allow you to use higher-HAP materials and spray application techniques for some open molding operations while using lower-HAP materials and lower-emitting application methods for others.

The proposed NESHAP do not allow you to average between open and closed molding resin operations. However, the EPA is soliciting comments on allowing averaging between open and closed molding operations under certain circumstances. Industry representatives have requested this option and have argued that it will encourage pollution prevention and long-term emissions reductions by encouraging the development of more widely applicable closed molding technologies.

The EPA developed separate MACT floors and standards for open and closed molding processes because open molding is currently considered a separate manufacturing process from closed molding. The NESHAP for open molding require you to use low-emitting resins and application methods to reduce emissions. On the other hand, closed molding is an inherently low-emitting process, so the proposed NESHAP impose no additional requirements to reduce emissions from closed molding. Because today's proposed NESHAP have no numerical emission limit for closed molding, you cannot “over control” closed molding for greater emissions reductions to offset excess emissions from open molding. Therefore, the proposed NESHAP do not include closed molding in the averaging approach that is based on a source-wide emission limit for resin and gel coat operations.

The EPA is, however, considering the feasibility of allowing closed molding as a control technology in a source-wide limit in cases where the closed molding is used as a substitute or replacement for an existing open molding operation. Here, any reduction from switching to closed molding could be applied to excess emissions from other open molding operations. Consider, for example, a boat manufacturing facility that makes 16-foot and 20-foot boats on two separate lines using open molding. If the facility adopts closed molding on the 20-foot line and ceases open molding, then this is an operational change that reduces emissions from the 20-foot boat line. The excess emissions reductions (above the level that would be required by the open molding standard) would allow the operator to use higher-HAP materials on the 16-foot boat line.

Under this proposal, EPA would allow averaging only when the closed molding resin application is a replacement for existing open molding resin application. This proposal includes this restriction because MACT for open molding resin application is nonatomized application of resin with 35 percent HAP content. If this restriction were not included, a facility spray applying a higher-HAP resin and using closed molding could comply without any emissions reductions simply by averaging the open and closed molding. Moreover, a facility that adds new closed molding capacity to increase production would be allowed to switch to higher HAP materials in their existing open molding operations. In these cases, the facility would not be reducing emissions from the open molding operations and would not be achieving an open molding control level equal to MACT (i.e., 35 percent HAP content and nonatomized application).

Therefore, EPA is soliciting comments on allowing averaging between open and closed molding by including closed molding in a source-wide emission limit. Under this proposal, you could average open and closed molding if you meet all of the following three conditions: (1) Your facility must be an existing source that is operating prior to today's proposal date, (2) you must begin the closed molding operation after today's proposal date, and (3) the closed molding operation must replace an equivalent amount of open molding production capacity that existed before today's proposal date. The EPA welcomes comments on the feasibility of this approach, and whether it would provide any additional operating flexibility to existing boat manufacturing facilities or encourage more closed molding.

HAP Content Limits for Aluminum Boat Surface Coatings. The proposed standard for aluminum boat surface coatings is expressed as mass of HAP per volume of coating solids. For coating operations, weight-percent HAP is not an accurate predictor of relative HAP. For this operation, the amount of coating needed to cover a surface is determined by the solids content of the coating. Coatings with similar weight-percent HAP contents, but different solids contents, will have different HAP because different amounts of coating will be needed for the same job.

In addition, coatings often have low-HAP solvents added to control viscosity and achieve other coating liquid properties. Such low-HAP solvents reduce HAP content as weight-percent, but increase the volume needed to achieve the same dry-film thickness. The proposed format of mass of HAP per volume of coating solids assures that coatings are being compared on an equal basis.

HAP Content Limit for Aluminum Wipe-Down Solvents. The proposed standard for aluminum wipe-down solvents is expressed as mass of HAP per volume of solids from aluminum primers or clear coats applied to bare aluminum. This format allows you to use a greater range of solvents and compares HAP on an equal basis.

The data available to us indicate that weight-percent HAP content for the wipe-down solvents is not an accurate predictor of emissions. Some facilities using higher-HAP solvents have lower HAP per unit of coating applied than those using lower-HAP solvents. These data indicate it is possible to use some higher-HAP solvents more efficiently than lower-HAP solvents and, therefore, a limit on solvent HAP content could be counterproductive.

Ideally, we would use HAP mass per unit surface area, but this is not practicable. It is not practical to measure or monitor the surface area to be cleaned prior to coating because of the complicated three-dimensional shape of aluminum boats and the variety of boats produced. Therefore, the volume of solids of aluminum clear coat primer applied to bare aluminum was selected as a surrogate for the amount of surface area to be cleaned prior to coating.

Selection of Averaging Time for Demonstrating Compliance. As a boat manufacturer, you must show compliance with the emissions limits in the proposed NESHAP on a 3-month, rolling-average basis. You must determine compliance at the end of each month from the data collected over the past 3 months. A 3-month averaging time provides a balance between operating flexibility and enforceability of the proposed standard. The 3-month period is sufficiently long so that you can identify potential compliance problems and change your operations in time to maintain compliance. The rolling-average aspect provides an enforceable emission limit 12 times per year.

Many boat manufacturers already track material usage monthly to comply with State regulations and permit requirements, so monthly tracking is consistent with current practice. Tracking on a more frequent basis would be unnecessarily burdensome. Boat manufacturers need a 3-month rolling-average period to respond to both short-term variations in HAP content that is inherent in all chemical products and short-term needs for higher-HAP materials.

J. How Did EPA Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance With the Proposed NESHAP?

The proposed NESHAP give you the option of complying by either meeting HAP content limits (among other requirements) or using an enclosure and add-on control device to meet numerical emission limits. The reference method for measuring the HAP content of resin, gel coat, adhesives, aluminum boat surface coatings, and wipe-down solvents subject to the proposed NESHAP is EPA Method 311 (Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection Into a Gas Chromatograph). This is an established method that is appropriate for measuring the types of HAP used in these materials. You may use alternative methods for measuring HAP content if approved by EPA.

The proposed NESHAP do not require a compliance test for HAP content, nor do they require you to test every shipment of materials that you receive. You are responsible, however, for ensuring, by any means that you choose (e.g., periodic testing, manufacturers' certification), that the HAP content of your materials complies with the requirements of the proposed NESHAP. We may require you to conduct a test at any time using EPA Method 311 (or any approved alternative method) to confirm the HAP content in the compliance reports that you submit. If there is any inconsistency between the results of the EPA Method 311 test and any other means of determining HAP content, the Method 311 results will govern.

If you choose to use an enclosure and add-on control device, you must determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure and measure the HAP from the control device. To determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure, you must use EPA Method 204 (Criteria for and Verification of Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure). If the enclosure meets the criteria in EPA Method 204 for a permanent total enclosure, then you may assume that its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the enclosure is not a total enclosure, then you must build a total temporary enclosure (TTE) around it that meets the definition of a TTE in EPA Method 204. You must then measure emissions from both the control device and the TTE and use the combined emissions to determine compliance.

To measure HAP, you may use either EPA Method 18 (Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography) to measure the sum of individual species of HAP or EPA Method 25A (Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer) for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for total HAP. The EPA Method 25A allows you the flexibility to use a simpler method than EPA Method 18 that does not speciate HAP in cases where measuring THC is sufficient to demonstrate compliance. You can measure THC as a surrogate for total HAP if most of the THC emitted from an enclosure are HAP, such as styrene and MMA from resin and gel coat operations. For compliance determinations, the EPA will assume that all THC measured with EPA Method 25A are HAP.

K. How Did EPA Determine the Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements?

The monitoring and recordkeeping requirements you must meet will depend on how you choose to comply with the proposed NESHAP. For each compliance option, the proposed monitoring and recordkeeping requirements are the minimum necessary to determine initial and ongoing compliance and are consistent with the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

Compliance with HAP Content Limits. For all operations subject to HAP content limits, you must perform three tasks: monitor and record the HAP content of the material used, monitor and record the monthly consumption of the material, and record the computations to show that the weighted average HAP content over the past 3 months meets the standard. If all the materials used in an operation meet the HAP content limit, then you only need to record HAP content, and you do not need to track monthly consumption or record the computations.

Compliance with Averaging Provisions. To comply with the averaging provisions for open molding operations, you must monitor and record HAP content, amount of material applied by spray, and the amount applied by nonspray; and you must record the computations needed to show compliance. You must use these data as well as the MACT model point value equations in the proposed NESHAP to calculate the HAP emitted for the materials used in that operation for the past 3 months. Compliance is then determined relative to the allowable HAP limit calculated for those operations for the past 3 months.

Compliance with Equipment and Work Practice Standards. The proposed NESHAP require resin and gel coat mixing containers to be fitted with covers that have no visible gaps. The proposed NESHAP also require that aluminum coating spray guns be cleaned in enclosed gun cleaners or sprayed into containers that can be closed when not in use. You will be required to inspect container covers and enclosed gun cleaners each month to ensure the covers are in place and properly maintained. You must record the results of the inspections. The inspections should be sufficient to ensure that the covers are in place and properly maintained. We believe that monthly inspections are a reasonable interval because the nature of failure in these pieces of equipment is likely due to wear and tear and not a sudden failure. Longer time periods between inspections, however, would allow a failure to go too long before being repaired.

The proposed NESHAP for production resin and tooling resin will require most manufacturers to use nonatomized resin application methods to comply. These methods include flowcoaters and pressure-fed resin rollers, among others. We could identify no parameters to monitor whether these methods were being used. Rather, compliance would be determined during enforcement inspections as to whether these methods were being used. As long as flowcoaters, pressure-fed resin rollers, or other similar devices are installed and operated according to manufacturer's specifications, they will comply with the requirements to use nonatomized resin application methods.

Compliance for Sources Using Enclosures and Add-on Control Devices. You have the option of using an enclosure and add-on control instead of complying with HAP content or application equipment standards. The requirements in the proposed NESHAP are consistent with other air quality regulations that require capture and control of emissions. They are the minimum needed to demonstrate that the capture and control system is operated properly.

You must initially demonstrate compliance with the emission limit by demonstrating that the enclosure is a total enclosure or by also measuring the fugitive emissions that escape the enclosure. You must also measure the efficiency of the add-on control using EPA Method 25A for THC (as a surrogate for HAP) or EPA Method 18 for HAP. The EPA Method 18 measures individual HAP that you sum to calculate total HAP.

After the initial compliance test, you must monitor control device parameters to demonstrate that the control device continues to be operated as it was during the initial test. In the case of thermal oxidizers, you must monitor and record combustion temperature every 15 minutes both during and after the performance test. You must calculate the average temperature achieved during the test. After the test, you must maintain the average temperature at or above the temperature achieved during the performance test. Temperature monitors and recorders are standard features on thermal oxidizers. For other devices, you must determine appropriate parameters to monitor and receive our approval to use these parameters.

L. How Did EPA Select the Notification and Reporting Requirements?

The required notices and reports are the minimum needed to determine if you are subject to the proposed NESHAP and whether you are in compliance. You must submit an initial notification stating that you are subject to the proposed NESHAP. After the compliance date for your facility, you must submit a notification of your compliance status. You must also submit semiannual reports of your compliance status. If you have an add-on control device and you identify deviations, you must submit quarterly reports of your compliance status until we approve a request to return to semiannual reporting.

If your facility is a new source, you will have additional preconstruction notification requirements. You will also have additional notification and reporting requirements if you use an add-on control device, including notifications and reports for the control device performance test. These notification and reporting requirements are consistent with those specified in the general provisions (subpart A) for part 63 and are the minimum needed for us to determine compliance for sources with add-on control devices.

The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan specified by the general provisions will be required only for sources using an add-on control device and will apply only to the add-on control device. For operations not using a control device, the nature of the materials and equipment used to comply with the proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP is such that malfunctions will not lead to excess emissions.

V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs Under the CAA

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

If you use an add-on control device other than a thermal oxidizer to control emissions from resin and gel coat operations, you will need to comply with certain provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for add-on controls. The standards in subpart SS cited by the proposed NESHAP are applicable to most sources using an add-on control device. The proposed NESHAP cite these sections in subpart SS rather than repeating them in the proposed regulatory text.

B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart II)

Coating operations on commercial or military aluminum boats and ships are subject to the Shipbuilding and Repair NESHAP. Today's proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP cover coating operations only on nonmilitary and noncommercial aluminum boats. Some boat manufacturers may be potentially subject to both NESHAP because they manufacturer both noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum boats and either commercial or military vessels. However, there is no conflict between the two NESHAP because the coating operations on any single vessel would be subject to only one NESHAP depending on the intended function of that vessel.

C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJ)

Boat manufacturers, particularly builders of large yachts, build wood furniture (such as beds, cabinets, and partitions) into the boat interiors and finish this furniture with stains, sealers, and varnishes that are similar to finishing materials used for household furniture. However, wood furniture finishing operations on boats are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, because the EPA has determined that wood furniture on a boat is integral to the boat cabin and is not comparable to the furniture regulated by 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ (see Docket No. A-95-44). Wood surface coating operations are not covered by the proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP.

D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) NESHAP

The NESHAP for plastic parts are still being developed and could potentially cover antifoulant and hull and deck surface coating operations at fiberglass boat facilities.

E. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and the Proposed Standards

Under the operating permit program codified at 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, all major sources subject to standards under section 111 or 112 of the CAA must obtain an operating permit (See § 70.3(a)(1) and § 71.3(a)(1)). Therefore, all major sources subject to the proposed NESHAP must obtain an operating permit. Area sources in this source category are not regulated by the proposed NESHAP, and, therefore, would not be required to obtain an operating permit unless a State with an approved operating permit program chooses to permit all nonmajor sources.

Some boat manufacturers may be major sources based solely on their potential to emit even though their actual emissions are below the major source level. These boat manufacturers may choose to obtain a federally enforceable limit on their potential to emit so that they are no longer considered major sources and not subject to the proposed 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 operating limits will then be federally enforceable under § 70.6(b).

The EPA believes that the boat manufacturing category could benefit from the development of a general permit. Under part 70, State permitting authorities are allowed to develop general permits for categories of sources containing numerous similar sources. In deciding which source should be covered by general permits, State regulators must consider three primary criteria: (1) Source categories covered by general permits should contain similar operations and emit pollutants with similar characteristics; (2) sources should not be subject to case-by-case standards; and (3) sources should be subject to the same or substantially similar requirements governing operation, emissions, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.

There are several benefits to a general permit. If a general permit developed by a permitting authority has been approved after public participation and EPA and affected State review, the permitting authority may then grant or deny a general permit to a source without further public participation or EPA and affected State review. The action of granting or denying a general permit is also not subject to judicial review. Another benefit of a general permit that would be particularly advantageous for the boat manufacturing industry is that sources may use general permits strictly for the purposes of becoming synthetic area sources (i.e., limiting their potential to emit).

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether a proposed regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1966.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at “farmer.sandy@epa.gov,” or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the internet at “http://www.epa.gov/icr.”

The proposed NESHAP contain monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The required notices and reports are the minimum needed by us to determine who is subject to the NESHAP and whether you are in compliance. The proposed recordkeeping requirements are the minimum necessary to determine initial and ongoing compliance. Based on reported information, we would decide which boat manufacturers 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, “Confidentiality of Business Information.”

The EPA expects the proposed NESHAP to affect a total of 134 boat manufacturing facilities over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that five new boat manufacturing facilities will become subject to the proposed NESHAP during each of the first 3 years. The EPA expects 119 existing facilities to be affected by the proposed NESHAP, and these existing facilities will begin complying in the third year.

The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after promulgation of the proposed NESHAP for industry and the implementing agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information collection in the “Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No. 1966.01,” in Docket No. A-95-44.

The EPA estimates that there are no capital or startup costs for these new facilities because they are expected to comply by limiting the HAP content of materials. The implementing agency would not incur any capital or startup costs.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked “Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 14, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 14, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed rule. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed rule.

If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.

This proposed rule 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 boat manufacturing facilities subject to the proposed NESHAP are owned by State or local governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have any direct compliance costs resulting from this proposed rule. Furthermore, EPA is directed to develop the proposed NESHAP by section 112 of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or we consult with those governments. If we comply by consulting, we are required by Executive Order 13084 to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of our prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires us to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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, we must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is approximately $14 million per year. This proposed rule contains no mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

We have determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires us to give special consideration to the effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. We must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless we certify that the rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”

We have determined that 66 out of the 2,307 small firms in the industry (2.9 percent) may be affected by this proposed rule. In a screening of impacts on these small firms, we found that 47 firms have costs that comprise less than 1 percent of firm revenues, and 19 firms have estimated compliance costs that exceed 1 percent of their revenues. Based on available data of industry profit margins, the average return on sales for the industry is 3.4 percent. Of the 19 firms with costs greater than one percent of revenues, only one firm is estimated to experience costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues. Thus, reviewing the range of costs to be borne by small businesses in light of the 3.4 percent profit margins typical of this industry, the Agency has determined the costs are typically small and, overall, do not constitute a significant impact on a substantial number. In addition, this proposed rule is likely to also increase profits at the 2,241 small firms that are not affected by the proposed rule due to the very slight increase in market prices. The economic impacts are summarized in section III.G. of this document and in the economic impact analysis contained in Docket No. A-95-44.

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. We have met with ten of these small firms and their trade association. They have been fully involved in this rulemaking, and their concerns have been considered in the development of this proposed rule. In developing these proposed standards, we have provided the maximum degree of flexibility to minimize impacts on small businesses by providing several different compliance options, several of which require a minimum amount of recordkeeping and reporting. Also, these proposed standards, which are based on MACT floor level control technology, reflect the minimum level of control allowed under the CAA. Small businesses that are subject to the proposed rule will not be systematically impacted more than larger operations. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we hereby certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Publication L. No. 104-113), all Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless doing 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 requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards for use in emissions testing. The search for emissions testing procedures identified 16 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that six of the candidate consensus standards identified for measuring emissions of HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation and validation data. Nine of the remaining candidate consensus standards are under development or under EPA review. The EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting these standards after their development and further review by EPA is completed.

The ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 1991) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 311 for only dichloromethane (methylene chloride) and 1,1,1-trichlorethane (methyl chloroform). The EPA is requesting comment on the incorporation by reference of ASTM D4457 for the purposes of the proposed NESHAP. Five consensus standards (ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94) are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311.

The ASTM D6420-99 is currently under EPA review as an approved alternative to EPA Method 18. The EPA will compare this final ASTM standard to methods previously approved as alternatives to EPA Method 18 with specific applicability limitations. These methods, designated as ALT-017 and CTM-028, are available through EPA's Emission Measurement Center Internet site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/tmethods.html. The final ASTM D6420-99 standard is very similar to these approved alternative methods, which may be equally suitable for specific applications. The EPA plans to continue their review of the final standard and will consider adopting the ASTM standard at a later date.

The EPA requests comment on compliance demonstration requirements proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Comments should explain why this regulation should adopt these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used).

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

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, this proposed rule is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

• Environmental protection
• Air pollution control
• Hazardous air pollutants
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds

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

PART 63—[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart VVVV to read as follows:

Subpart VVVV—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing

What the Subpart Covers