[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41718-41739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19603]



[[Page 41717]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41718]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7024-9]
RIN 2060-AH42


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
operations. The EPA has identified flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication facilities as potential major sources of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emissions such as methylene chloride, hydrochloric 
acid (HCl), 2,4-toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN). 
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse 
health effects such as irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous 
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and cancer.
    These proposed NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) by requiring flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
facilities that are major sources to meet HAP emission standards 
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT). The EPA estimates that these proposed NESHAP will reduce 
nationwide emissions of HAP from flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
operations by approximately 6.5 tons per year (tpy) for each new or 
reconstructed affected source. The emissions reductions achieved by 
these proposed NESHAP, when combined with the emissions reductions 
achieved by other similar standards, will provide protection to the 
public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 9, 2001.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 28, 2001, a public hearing will be held on 
September 7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-2000-43, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by 
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 
A-2000-43, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 
10:00 a.m. in the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. A-2000-43 contains supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be 
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the proposed 
NESHAP, contact Ms. Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 
541-5607; facsimile number (919) 541-3470; electronic mail address 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Comments 
submitted by e-mail must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use 
of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be 
accepted on disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file 
format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note 
the docket number: A-2000-43. 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: Ms. Maria Noell, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 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.
    Public Hearing. A request for a public hearing must be made by the 
date specified under the DATES section. Persons interested in 
presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be 
held should contact: Ms. Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division, (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 
541-5607 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons 
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. 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.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered 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 identify and locate documents 
readily 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.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed NESHAP will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's 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. Additional related information 
may also be found on the Air Toxics Website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. If more information

[[Page 41719]]

regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by 
this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Regulated
           Category              SIC \a\     NAICS \b\       entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................         3086        32615  Fabricators of
                                                          flexible
                                                          polyurethane
                                                          foam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Information Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide 
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 Sec. 63.8782 of the proposed NESHAP. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What are the health effects associated with flexible 
polyurethane foam fabrication operations HAP emissions?
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
    A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by 
these proposed NESHAP?
    B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the 
emissions?
    C. What are the proposed affected sources?
    D. What are the emission limitations and compliance dates?
    E. What are the testing, initial compliance, and continuous 
compliance requirements?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How are we defining the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we select the form of the standards?
    D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed 
standards for existing and new sources?
    E. How did we select the testing, initial, and continuous 
compliance requirements?
    F. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy 
impacts?
    C. What are the cost and economic impacts?
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

I. Background

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

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. On June 4, 
1996 (61 FR 28197), we added the flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
operation source category to our initial list of major source 
categories published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 
31576). Based on information available in 1996, there were flexible 
polyurethane foam fabrication operations considered to be major sources 
because of the use of methylene chloride-based adhesives. Major sources 
of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of 
any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as the MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum level allowed for NESHAP and is 
defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor 
ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major 
sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that 
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in 
each source category or subcategory. 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 MACT standards for 
existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing 
sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy impacts.

C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Fabrication Operations HAP Emissions?

    The primary HAP emitted from the use of adhesives to glue pieces of 
foam together or to other substrates is methylene chloride. The primary 
HAP emitted from flame lamination of foam is HCl; HCN and TDI also are 
present in small quantities.
    The HAP that would be controlled with these proposed NESHAP are 
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse 
health effects include acute and chronic health disorders that include 
irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous membranes and effects on the 
central nervous system. We have classified methylene chloride as a 
probable human carcinogen, and the International Agency for Research on 
Cancer (IARC) has classified TDI as a possible human carcinogen.
    We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the 
facilities covered by the emissions standards for this source category, 
or on the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary 
to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to 
the HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant 
health effects. Therefore, we

[[Page 41720]]

do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described 
above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, 
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed NESHAP will 
reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
    We present a discussion of the HAP-specific health effects in the 
following paragraphs.
1. Methylene Chloride
    Acute (short-term) exposure to methylene chloride by inhalation 
affects the nervous system, causing decreased visual, auditory, and 
motor functions. These effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The 
effects of chronic (long-term) exposure to methylene chloride suggest 
that the central nervous system is a potential target in both humans 
and animals. Limited animal studies have reported developmental 
effects. Human data are inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and 
cancer. Animal studies have shown increases in liver and lung cancer 
and benign mammary gland tumors following the inhalation of methylene 
chloride. We have classified methylene chloride as a Group B2, probable 
human carcinogen.
2. Hydrochloric Acid
    Hydrochloric acid is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous 
membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose, and 
respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema in 
humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause 
gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to 
low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No 
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects 
of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus 
cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and 
decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. We have not 
classified HCl for carcinogenicity.
3. 2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate
    Acute exposure to high levels of TDI in humans by inhalation 
results in severe irritation of the skin and eyes and affects the 
respiratory, gastrointestinal, and central nervous systems. Chronic 
inhalation exposure to TDI in humans has resulted in significant 
decreases in lung function in workers, an asthma-like reaction 
characterized by wheezing, dyspnea, and bronchial constriction, and 
effects on the liver, blood, and kidneys. No information is available 
on the carcinogenic effects of TDI in humans, but animal studies have 
reported increased incidences of tumors of the pancreas, liver, and 
mammary glands from oral exposure to TDI. We have not classified TDI 
for carcinogenicity. The IARC has classified TDI as a Group 2B, 
possible human carcinogen.
4. Hydrogen Cyanide
    Acute inhalation exposure to high levels of HCN can result in 
death. Chronic inhalation exposure of humans to HCN results primarily 
in effects on the central nervous system. Other effects in humans 
include cardiovascular and respiratory effects, an enlarged thyroid 
gland, and irritation to the eyes and skin. No data are available on 
the developmental effects of cyanide in humans via inhalation, but 
animal studies have suggested that oral exposure to cassava (a cyanide-
containing vegetable) may be associated with malformations in the fetus 
and low fetal body weights. No studies are available on the 
carcinogenic effects of cyanide in humans or animals. We have 
classified cyanide as a Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity.

II. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by These 
Proposed NESHAP?

    Today's proposed NESHAP apply to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations source category. This source category includes 
operations engaged in cutting, gluing, and/or laminating pieces of 
flexible polyurethane foam. This includes fabrication operations that 
are located at foam production plants, as well as those that are 
located off-site from foam production plants.
    We have identified two subcategories under the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source category. These 
subcategories are loop slitter HAP-based adhesive use and flame 
lamination. Loop slitters are equipment at foam fabrication operations 
that are used to slice large foam blocks into thin sheets. Flame 
lamination refers to the bonding of foam to other substrates (i.e., 
cloth, foam, plastic, and other materials), where the bonding agent is 
scorched or melted foam.

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

    This section describes the primary sources of potential HAP 
emissions from loop slitter adhesive use and flame lamination.
1. Loop Slitter Adhesive Use
    A loop slitter is a large machine used to create thin sheets of 
foam from the large blocks of foam or ``buns'' created at a foam 
production plant. Because of the difficulty of transporting the buns, 
loop slitters are generally located at foam production plants. A 
slitter consists of a large, vertical, oval conveyor belt, and a 
cutting mechanism. The buns are mounted on the conveyor and glued end-
to-end, forming a loop. The conveyor spins the looped bun rapidly past 
a blade, which shaves off a sheet of foam in the desired thickness. The 
foam buns are very large (10 feet wide by 10 feet high by 200 feet 
long). As a result, the slitters typically operate for several hours 
before they must be reloaded with new buns of foam.
    The only portion of the loop slitter process that uses adhesives is 
when attaching the buns end-to-end to form a loop. However, because of 
the nature of the process and the product produced, the adhesives used 
have different requirements than other typical foam fabrication 
adhesives. The rapidly spinning buns are subjected to great stress as 
soon as the machine is turned on, so the adhesive used must bond 
rapidly. Also, the seam where the buns are joined is a potential defect 
in the foam sheets that are the product of the process. Some adhesives 
(particularly water-based adhesives) produce a hard seam which is 
considered a product defect and can dull the knife-blades of the 
slitter. In order to comply with Occupational Health and Safety 
Administration (OSHA) regulations, loop slitters have converted from a 
reliance on methylene chloride-based adhesives to other non-HAP 
alternatives since the mid-1990's. As a result of the OSHA regulations, 
we believe that the foam fabrication industry has effectively 
discontinued use of methylene chloride-based adhesives, resulting in 
zero estimated baseline HAP emissions from loop slitter adhesive use.
2. Flame Lamination
    In the flame lamination process, foam is scorched to adhere it to 
various substrates. This process releases particulates and HAP. We have 
identified HCN, TDI, and HCl as HAP emitted as a result of flame 
lamination. These HAP are a product of the combustion of unreacted 
diisocyanates from the foam production process (HCN and TDI) and the 
chlorinated fire retardant additives that are present in some 
polyurethane foams (HCl). Specific HAP released are dependant on the 
contents of the foam being laminated at a given time. With the

[[Page 41721]]

exception of HCl, these HAP are generally released in very small 
amounts.
    The baseline emission estimates are generated from data obtained 
from individual facilities, as well as from State agencies to which 
facilities reported their annual emissions. Where reported emissions 
are not available, we calculated emission estimates using a HAP 
emission factor, the laminator's operating schedule, the number of 
flame lamination lines, and the percent of the operating time that fire 
retardant foam is laminated (used only when calculating HCl emissions). 
We estimated total nationwide baseline HAP emissions from flame 
lamination as 58.8 tpy HCl, 10.3 tpy HCN, and 3.0 tpy TDI, which 
amounts to a total of 72.1 tpy HAP.

C. What Are the Proposed Affected Sources?

    The proposed NESHAP define two affected sources related to each of 
the proposed subcategories. The loop slitter adhesive use affected 
source is the collection of loop slitters and associated adhesive 
application equipment used to apply HAP-based adhesives to bond foam to 
foam at a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant site. Loop 
slitter affected sources, located at plant sites that are major sources 
of HAP, that are using HAP-based adhesives on or after [Date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] would be subject 
to the NESHAP, including the applicable emission limit and reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements. However, loop slitter affected sources 
that have eliminated use of HAP-based adhesives by [Date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register] would not be subject to the 
NESHAP. The flame lamination affected source is the collection of all 
flame laminators and associated rollers at a flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication plant site associated with the flame lamination of foam to 
any substrate.

D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Compliance Dates?

    For existing, new, or reconstructed loop slitter adhesive use 
affected sources, we are proposing an emission limit of zero HAP 
emissions from adhesives use. This can be achieved through the use of 
non-HAP-based adhesives. Existing affected sources must be in 
compliance by [Date 1 year after date of publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register]. New or reconstructed sources must be in 
compliance by the date of startup of the affected source, or by [Date 
of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is 
later.
    We are defining HAP-based adhesives as adhesives containing 
detectable HAP, where the concentration of HAP may be determined using 
EPA Method 311 (Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints 
and Coatings by Direct Injection Into a Gas Chromatograph). Method 311 
is an established method that is appropriate for measuring the types of 
HAP used in these materials. The affected source may use approved 
alternative methods for measuring HAP content, or other reasonable 
means of HAP content determinations.
    We are not proposing any emission limitations for existing flame 
lamination affected sources. Therefore, existing flame lamination 
affected sources would not be subject to the proposed NESHAP, except 
for a requirement to submit an initial notification within 120 days 
after [Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. 
For new and reconstructed flame lamination affected sources, the 
proposed NESHAP would require that facilities reduce HAP emissions from 
these affected sources by 90 percent. These affected sources would be 
required to be in compliance upon startup or by [Date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later.

E. What Are the Testing, Initial Compliance, and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?

    We present the proposed testing, initial compliance, and continuous 
compliance requirements for the flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
loop slitter adhesive use and flame lamination affected sources in the 
following paragraphs.
1. Loop Slitter Adhesive Use
    We are proposing that loop slitter affected sources demonstrate 
initial and continuous compliance by certifying that no HAP-based 
adhesives are or will be used. The initial certification must be 
submitted within 60 days of the compliance date. The certification 
would be accompanied by documentation stating what the facility will 
use for adhesives, along with supporting information to document the 
HAP content of adhesives used at the facility, such as Method 311 
results or other approved information. Thereafter, on a yearly basis, 
the source would recertify compliance, including HAP content 
information on any new adhesives used at the source.
    While sources may use EPA Method 311, an approved alternative 
method, or any other reasonable means for determining the HAP content 
of adhesives, if the results of an analysis by EPA Method 311 are 
different from the HAP content determined by another means, the EPA 
Method 311 results will govern compliance determinations. Other 
reasonable means include a material safety data sheet (MSDS), provided 
it contains appropriate information; a certified product data sheet 
(CPDS); or a manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet. Sources 
are not required to test the materials used, but the Administrator may 
require a test using EPA Method 311 (or an approved alternative method) 
to confirm the reported HAP content.
2. Flame Lamination
    For new or reconstructed flame lamination affected sources, we are 
proposing that initial compliance be demonstrated by conducting a 
performance test within 180 days after the compliance date that 
demonstrates that HAP emissions are being reduced by 90 percent. In 
order to demonstrate continuous compliance with this emissions limit, 
we are proposing to require continuous monitoring of control device 
parameters. Specifically for venturi scrubbers, which we believe will 
be the control device of choice in most situations, the proposed NESHAP 
would require that the pH of the scrubber effluent, the scrubber liquid 
flow rate, and the pressure drop across the venturi be monitored 
continuously. Continuous compliance would be demonstrated by these 
monitored parameters staying within the operating limits. Operating 
limits would be established for each parameter based on monitoring 
conducted during the initial performance test and reported in the 
facility's Notification of Compliance Status Report.

F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The proposed NESHAP would require owners or operators of foam 
fabrication operations at major sources to submit several notifications 
and reports, which are listed and then briefly described in this 
section. First, we are proposing to require all owners or operators of 
affected sources to submit an Initial Notification. In addition, owners 
or operators of all flexible polyurethane loop slitter adhesive use 
affected sources and new or reconstructed flame lamination affected 
sources must also submit the following notification and reports:
     Notification of Intent to conduct a performance test (new 
or reconstructed flame laminators only)
     Notification of Compliance Status (NOCS) Reports

[[Page 41722]]

     Periodic Compliance Reports
     Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports (new or 
reconstructed flame laminators only).
    For the Initial Notification, we are proposing to require that each 
owner or operator notify us that their facility is subject to the 
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations NESHAP, and that they 
provide specified basic information about their facility. This 
notification would be required to be submitted within 120 days after 
[Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] for 
existing affected sources. New or reconstructed affected sources would 
be required to submit the application for construction or 
reconstruction required by Sec. 63.9(b)(iii) of the 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A General Provisions in lieu of the Initial Notification.
    For the Notification of Intent Report, we are proposing that each 
new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source owner or operator 
notify us in writing of the intent to conduct a performance test at 
least 60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin. The 
NOCS Report would be submitted within 60 days of completion of the 
performance test. A certified notification of compliance that states 
the compliance status of the facility, along with supporting 
information (e.g., performance test results and operating parameter 
values and ranges) would be submitted as part of the NOCS.
    For sources complying with the standards for loop slitter adhesive 
use, the NOCS would be due within 60 days of the compliance date. These 
NOCS must list each adhesive used at the affected source, the 
manufacturer or supplier of each, and the individual HAP content 
(percent by mass) of each adhesive that is used.
    For the Periodic Compliance Report, we are proposing that 
facilities subject to control requirements under the proposed NESHAP 
report on continued compliance with the flame lamination new source 
emission limit semiannually, and report on continued compliance with 
the loop slitter adhesive use HAP-based usage limit annually.
    Finally, for the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report, we are 
proposing that each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed flame 
lamination affected source report any startup, shutdown, or malfunction 
during the reporting period that is not in the facility's startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    We also would require that each owner or operator maintain records 
of reported information and other information necessary to document 
compliance (e.g., records related to malfunction, records that show 
continuous compliance with emission limits) for 5 years.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Are We Defining the Source Category?

    On June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28197), we added the Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Fabrication Operations source category to our initial list of 
major source categories published in the Federal Register on July 16, 
1992 (57 FR 31576). Based on information available in 1996, there were 
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations that were major 
sources because of the use of methylene chloride-based adhesives. 
Today's proposed NESHAP revise the 1996 definition of the source 
category. We are proposing that only fabrication operations using HAP-
based adhesives to bond foam for use on a loop slitter and fabrication 
operations using flame lamination should be included in the source 
category. We are proposing to exclude non-slitter adhesive use from the 
source category.
    In our analysis, we discovered that there are three distinct 
processes used in the gluing together of polyurethane foam pieces 
(i.e., use of adhesives on a loop slitter, use of adhesives in other 
foam fabrication operations, and use of flame lamination). We 
considered whether non-slitter and loop slitter adhesive use pose a 
potential to emit HAP, given the impact of the OSHA permissible 
exposure limit (PEL), which has resulted in foam fabricators moving to 
non-methylene chloride-based adhesives. Depending on the emission 
source, we believe companies potentially have different options to 
comply with the OSHA work place limits on methylene chloride. For 
example, loop slitter adhesive use is brief and intermittent, typically 
not occurring more than once during a single shift, and it is possible 
that some facilities could meet a time weighted average exposure if use 
were infrequent enough. Additionally, the adhesive could be applied by 
workers wearing respiration equipment, or a hood or other ventilation 
equipment could be added to the adhesive application station. All of 
these application methods have the potential to meet the exposure 
limits set by OSHA, but still result in methylene chloride emissions. 
In fact, we believe that most loop slitters have converted to non-HAP 
adhesives, but the potential for using ventilation-based compliance 
methods exists.
    In contrast, non-slitter adhesive use generally occurs at numerous 
work stations, with multiple workers applying adhesive to foam parts 
throughout the work period. These conditions do not lend themselves 
easily to workers wearing respiration equipment or the air flow 
requirements to ventilate the working areas well enough to meet OSHA's 
PEL. Therefore, we believe these sources must convert to non-methylene 
chloride-based adhesives to meet the OSHA PEL, which eliminates 
methylene chloride emissions from the source.
    In order to further evaluate current trends regarding the use of 
adhesives in foam fabrication, we contacted adhesive suppliers and foam 
fabricators. We found that acceptable alternatives to HAP-based 
adhesives are available and commonly used for many applications. 
Information available from owners or operators of 99 foam fabrication 
facilities indicates that they do not use any methylene chloride 
adhesives for their non-loop-slitter foam fabrication operations. The 
alternatives most frequently mentioned include water-based adhesives 
and non-HAP solvent-based adhesives using n-propyl bromide or acetone.
    We do not believe that any non-slitter adhesive sources are using 
HAP-based adhesives, unless they are failing to comply with the OSHA 
PEL for methylene chloride. This is because the nature of the foam 
fabrication process at these facilities makes the use of individual 
respiration equipment or workplace ventilation infeasible. Based on 
available information and current conditions, we do not believe that 
additional controls from the NESHAP, such as a prohibition against the 
use of HAP-based adhesives, would result in any additional emissions 
reductions either now or in the future. In fact, the only impact would 
be the imposition of additional monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping burden on the part of the industry that is thought to 
contain many small businesses.
    As a result of this analysis, we are proposing to revise the source 
category definition to exclude non-slitter adhesive use. We are 
requesting comment and supporting information on this revision to the 
source category definition. Should we learn through the comment period 
on these proposed NESHAP that there are non-slitter adhesive sources 
using HAP-based adhesives that are located on the site of a major 
source, we would retain them in the source category and treat them as a 
third subcategory. A preliminary analysis indicates that a ban on HAP-

[[Page 41723]]

based adhesive use would represent the MACT floor for that subcategory.

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

    For the purposes of implementing a NESHAP, an affected source is 
defined to mean the stationary source, or portion of a stationary 
source, that is regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement 
established under section 112 of the CAA. In other words, the affected 
source is composed of the group of unit operations, equipment, and 
emission points that are subject to the NESHAP. Under each relevant 
standard, we must designate the ``affected source'' for the purpose of 
implementing that standard. We do this for each source category (or 
subcategory) by deciding which HAP emission sources (i.e., emission 
points or groupings of emission points) are most appropriate for 
establishing separate emission standards or work practices in the 
context of the CAA statutory requirements and the industry operating 
practices for the particular source category.
    We can define the affected source as narrowly as a single item of 
equipment or as broadly as all equipment at the plant site that is used 
to produce the product that defines the source category. The affected 
source also identifies the collection of equipment that would be 
evaluated to determine whether replacement of components at an existing 
affected source would qualify as reconstruction. Defining the affected 
source narrowly could affect whether some parts of a process unit would 
be subject to new source requirements and other parts of the process 
unit would be subject to existing source requirements.
    We propose to separate the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations source category into two subcategories: loop slitter 
adhesive use and flame lamination. We also propose to treat each 
subcategory as a separate affected source, because the HAP emissions, 
processes, and controls are significantly different between the two 
subcategories. Flame lamination emissions result from combustion 
products based on the composition of the foam rather than from 
evaporation of HAP-based adhesives. Add-on controls are feasible for 
flame lamination, whereas loop slitter adhesive use emissions 
reductions have resulted from pollution-prevention measures such as 
changing the type of adhesive to a water-based or other non-HAP based 
material.
    We also considered how broadly to define each affected source. In 
both cases, HAP emissions are tied to a collection of specific 
equipment. Therefore, the loop slitter adhesive use affected source is 
the collection of loop slitters and associated adhesive application 
equipment used to apply HAP-based adhesives to bond foam to foam at a 
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant site. The flame lamination 
affected source is all flame lamination lines (flame laminators and 
associated rollers) at a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant 
site associated with the flame lamination of foam to any substrate.

C. How Did We Select the Form of the Standards?

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that standards be specified as a 
numerical emission standard, whenever possible. However, if we 
determine that ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission 
standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants,'' 
section 112(h) indicates that a design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard may be specified.
    For the proposed standards, we selected an emission limit of zero 
HAP emissions from use of adhesives at loop slitter adhesive use 
affected sources. This format is consistent with current practices, 
because sources have converted to the use of non-HAP-based adhesives to 
comply with the OSHA PEL. In order to recognize the industry trend, we 
are proposing that sources that are not using HAP-based adhesives 
before the effective date of the NESHAP would not face any requirements 
under the NESHAP.
    We selected a numerical emission limit combined with parametric 
operating limits for new and reconstructed flame lamination affected 
sources. Specifically, we are proposing requiring a 90 percent emission 
reduction of HAP at new and reconstructed flame lamination affected 
sources. The sources would then establish operating limits using 
performance test results and control device operating parameters.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for Existing and New Sources?

    For source categories/subcategories with greater than 30 sources, 
MACT for existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources. Further, MACT for source categories/subcategories 
with fewer than 30 sources cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 5 sources. We have 
determined that ``average'' means any measure of central tendency, 
whether it be the arithmetic mean, median, or mode, or some other 
measure based on the best measure decided on for determining the 
central tendency of a data set (59 FR 29196, June 6, 1994).
1. Loop Slitter Adhesive Use MACT
    We estimate that there are 40 facilities nationwide with loop 
slitters. Information available from owners and operators of 30 
facilities where loop slitters are located indicates that 22 facilities 
(55 percent of the total estimated number of facilities) use non-HAP 
adhesives. However, some facilities report that they may continue to 
use methylene chloride adhesives, at least in small quantities. We 
believe that it is feasible that loop slitters could continue to use 
these adhesives and still meet the OSHA exposure limits through 
technological means. Since non-HAP use represents greater than 12 
percent of the loop slitter facilities, we concluded that the MACT 
floor for existing, new, and reconstructed loop slitters is the 
prohibition on the use of HAP-based adhesives.
2. Flame Lamination MACT
    Of 21 known flame lamination facilities, we estimate that there are 
eight flame lamination facilities in the United States that are major 
sources of HAP (based on actual or potential HCl emissions). Because 
there are fewer than 30 sources, we evaluated the performance of the 
best performing five facilities to determine the MACT floor. Of the top 
five major sources, three facilities are uncontrolled and two 
facilities use scrubbers, which were installed to control particulate 
emissions and also reduce HCl and HCN emissions. Based on the mode of 
this data set, we concluded that the existing source MACT floor is no 
control.
    After determining the MACT floor for flame lamination existing 
sources, we evaluated whether a level of control beyond the floor is 
justified. We considered requiring the use of a scrubber to reduce HCl 
and HCN emissions. However, the HAP emissions reductions that would be 
achieved by requiring a scrubber do not warrant the cost without 
further evaluation of risk. We determined the average incremental cost 
per ton of HAP emissions reduced to be approximately $18,000.
    We also considered whether the use of incineration would be a 
reasonable beyond-the-floor option to control HCN and TDI emissions 
from the flame lamination affected source. Two existing area source 
facilities presently control TDI and HCN emissions from these sources 
by using an incinerator, but do

[[Page 41724]]

not control HCl emissions. However, controlling these additional HAP 
emissions would cost approximately $70,300 per ton of HAP emissions 
reduced for a representative source; thus, we are not proposing to 
control these emissions.
    However, because we lack information on every operation in this 
industry, we are proposing to require existing major sources to submit 
an initial notification. This will ensure that if other information 
becomes available that would indicate a need for an emission 
limitation, we can readily identify potential major sources in this 
subcategory.
    Since at least one facility uses a venturi scrubber that controls 
HCl and HCN emissions, we concluded that the new source MACT floor is 
based on manufacturer's claims that 90 percent reduction of HCl and HCN 
emissions is achievable using a venturi scrubber. Therefore, we 
selected a 90 percent HAP (measured as either HCl or HCN) emission 
reduction as MACT for new and reconstructed flame lamination affected 
sources.
    It is possible that another control technology could achieve a 
larger emission reduction of the gaseous emissions. Venturi scrubbers, 
which are designed primarily to control particulate matter via 
impaction, interception and diffusion mechanisms, cannot achieve larger 
gaseous reductions because the high gas velocity does not permit 
sufficient contact time between the liquid and gas to allow more than 
90 percent of the pollutant gas to be absorbed into the scrubber 
liquid. In contrast, scrubbers designed primarily for gas absorption 
(i.e., packed-tower scrubbers) can achieve a 99 percent gaseous 
pollutant removal efficiency when properly designed. However, gas 
absorbers are not recommended for use with gas streams containing 
particulate matter because they can become plugged with particulate 
matter, which would decrease their efficiency. Therefore, we concluded 
that it is not practical to use a gas absorber on a gas stream 
containing particulate matter.
    We also considered whether controlling TDI and the residual HCN 
emissions from new sources was a reasonable beyond-the-floor option. 
However, reducing these additional HAP emissions would cost the same as 
for existing sources (approximately $70,300 per ton of HAP reduced for 
a representative source); therefore, we are not proposing to control 
these emissions at this time.
    Finally, we considered whether banning the flame lamination of foam 
containing chlorinated compounds was a feasible beyond-the-floor option 
for existing, new, or reconstructed sources. We considered this option 
because we believe that HCl is emitted from flame laminators only when 
the foam being laminated contains chlorinated fire retardant. 
Therefore, banning the flame lamination of chlorinated fire retardant 
foams would effectively eliminate HCl emissions from flame lamination. 
This option does not achieve any control of HCN or TDI. However, no 
alternative fire retardant has been identified that would be adequate 
and appropriate for all flame lamination applications in which fire 
retardant foams are required, and we determined that this option is not 
feasible. We request comment and data on this issue.

E. How Did We Select the Testing, Initial, and Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?

    We selected the proposed testing, initial, and continuous 
compliance requirements based on requirements specified in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements were 
adopted for flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities to be 
consistent with other part 63 NESHAP. These requirements will ensure 
that we obtain or have access to sufficient information to determine 
whether an affected source is complying with the standards specified in 
the proposed NESHAP.
1. Loop Slitter Adhesive Use
    We determined that certifying use of complying adhesives and 
submitting supporting documentation on the HAP content of the adhesives 
used is the best method of assuring initial and continued compliance 
with a zero HAP emission limit for loop slitters. Therefore, we propose 
to require that initial and continued compliance with the zero HAP 
emission limit be demonstrated by having the owner or operator submit a 
certification in the Notification of Compliance Status Report stating 
that they are compliant, and will continue to be compliant, with the 
prohibition. We chose to require that this certification be supported 
with documentation that states what the facility uses for adhesives 
(i.e., materials and quantity) and that no HAP-based adhesives are 
used.
    We determined that it would be an unnecessary burden for a facility 
to submit semiannual certifications if a facility does not use HAP-
based adhesives and certifies with their initial certification that 
they will not use HAP-based adhesives in the future. Therefore, we only 
require annual certifications.
    If after a facility submits the Notification of Compliance Status, 
it uses an adhesive for which it has not previously verified percent 
HAP mass using the methods in 40 CFR 63.8802, the facility must verify 
that each adhesive used in the affected source meets the emission 
limit, using any of the methods in Sec. 63.8802. The facility must then 
update the list of all the adhesives used at the affected source and 
include this information in the next compliance report. If a HAP-based 
adhesive was used during this time, or if the facility added HAP-
containing solvents to the adhesive as purchased, the facility would 
report a violation of the emission limit.
2. Flame Lamination
    The proposed NESHAP would require a compliance test to determine 
initial compliance with the control efficiency requirement proposed for 
flame lamination operations at new or reconstructed sources. As 
proposed, sources that use chlorinated fire retardants and emit HCl 
would use EPA Method 26A (HCl) to determine the percent reduction of 
HCl emissions from the control device. Because HCN is at least as 
soluble in aqueous solutions, especially caustic solutions, as HCl, we 
believe testing for a single HAP (HCl) will demonstrate compliance with 
the requirement to reduce 90 percent of the HAP entering the control 
device.
    However, some sources do not use chlorinated fire retardants in 
their foam. These sources would only emit HCN. Unfortunately, an EPA 
test method for HCN does not exist at this time. Therefore, the 
proposed rule would require sources to submit a proposed test method 
for the Administrator's approval prior to conducting the test. While we 
plan to develop an HCN method for inclusion in the final rule, we 
request your comments on potential test methods.
    The General Provisions (at Sec. 63.7(e)(3)) require that each test 
consist of at least three separate test runs. The proposed NESHAP adopt 
this requirement. Further, the proposed NESHAP require that each test 
run be at least 1 hour long.
    In order to assure continuous compliance with the new source 
emissions limit for flame lamination operations, we are proposing to 
require the use of continuous parameter monitoring systems to monitor 
the pH of the scrubber effluent, the scrubber liquid flow rate, and, if 
a venturi scrubber is used, pressure drop. Continuous compliance would 
be demonstrated by these monitored parameters staying within the 
operating

[[Page 41725]]

limits, which would be established based on monitoring conducted during 
the initial performance test. These parameters were chosen to 
demonstrate continuous compliance because they are the best indicators 
of continued performance of scrubber control efficiency.
    We considered requiring the use of HCl and HCN continuous emission 
monitoring systems (CEMS), but rejected that option. We were unable to 
identify any CEMS for HCN, which leaves parametric monitoring of the 
scrubber to demonstrate compliance as the only option. While there are 
readily available HCl CEMS, the cost of these compared to the cost of 
the control device is unreasonable. We calculated the capital cost for 
a venturi scrubber on a new or reconstructed flame lamination source to 
be approximately $58,000, with an annualized capital cost of $8,300. In 
contrast, the total cost to install and operate an extractive-based 
CEMS to monitor the efficiency of the scrubber is at least $215,600, 
with annualized costs of nearly $61,000 to monitor HCl. Use of Fourier 
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIS) is even more expensive (i.e., up 
to $271,900 capital cost and $104,600 annualized costs.) In contrast, 
the capital costs for parametric monitoring devices and a data 
recording device would be less than $10,000 per facility.

F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We selected the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements based on requirements specified in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). As with the proposed initial 
and continuous compliance requirements, these requirements were adopted 
for flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plants to be consistent with 
other part 63 NESHAP.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    We estimate that current HAP emissions from loop slitter adhesive 
users are essentially zero because of changes in adhesive composition 
as a result of the OSHA PEL for methylene chloride. Therefore, we do 
not expect any decreases from this subcategory resulting from the 
proposed NESHAP.
    Nationwide baseline emissions from the flame lamination subcategory 
are 58.8 tpy HCl, 10.3 tpy HCN, and 3.0 tpy TDI, for a total of 72.1 
tpy HAP. We have not proposed any emissions limitations for existing 
flame lamination sources; therefore, we do not expect any emissions 
reductions from the baseline. However, the proposed NESHAP should 
result in a 90 percent reduction in HCl and HCN emissions from any new 
or reconstructed major sources. We calculate that a typical flame 
lamination operation emits 7.3 tpy of combined HCl and HCN, which would 
be reduced by 90 percent, for a total HAP emission reduction of 6.5 tpy 
from each new or reconstructed affected source. In addition, 
particulate matter emissions from flame lamination would also be 
reduced by any scrubber used to reduce the HAP emissions.

B. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

    Based on our analysis, we calculate that 64,700 gallons per year of 
wastewater will be generated by a new or reconstructed flame lamination 
source. The annual cost to treat this wastewater is less than $250 per 
year. We do not expect that there will be any significant adverse non-
air health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the 
proposed NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plants.

C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?

    We have calculated no capital costs for loop slitter adhesive users 
and existing flame laminators because we are proposing that these 
sources only be subject to reporting and recordkeeping costs. We 
estimate that up to three new flame laminators may be built in the next 
3 years, but only one of these would be a major source subject to the 
proposed NESHAP. This source would face capital costs associated with 
installation of a control device (e.g., scrubber) and monitoring 
equipment. The control and monitoring device capital cost is 
approximately $65,000, and the annualized capital cost is approximately 
$9,300. The average annual costs include labor costs associated with 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements and the 
operation, and maintenance of the required control equipment is 
approximately $63,000 per year. In contrast, total industry revenues in 
1997 (based on a North American Industry Classification System code of 
32615) were approximately $6.7 billion. Given that only one source will 
be affected and the cost of control is a very small portion of industry 
revenues, the economic impacts associated with this proposed rule are 
considered to be negligible.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB). The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

B. 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.

[[Page 41726]]

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. 
This is because the proposed rule applies to affected sources in the 
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication industry, not to States or local 
governments. Nor will State law be preempted or any mandates be imposed 
on States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 
the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. The EPA notes, 
however, that although not required to do so by this Executive Order 
(or otherwise), it did consult with State governments during 
development of this proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175, 
because we are not aware of any Indian tribal governments or 
communities affected by the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

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

     Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 
performance. No children's risk analysis was performed because no 
alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at 
a reasonable cost. Additionally, this proposed rule is not 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The total annual cost of this proposed 
rule for any 1 year has been estimated at $60,000 per year. Thus, 
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, 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. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

[[Page 41727]]

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies 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 
NESHAP on small entities, a small entity is defined based on 
definitions provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Based 
on the SBA definitions, there are no small entities affected by the 
proposed NESHAP. Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we 
hereby certify that the proposed NESHAP, if promulgated, will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2027.01), and you may obtain a copy 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division 
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information 
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    According to the ICR, the total 3-year monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection is 3,634 labor hours, and the 
annual average burden is 1,211 labor hours. The labor cost over the 3-
year period is $154,399 or $51,466 per year. The annualized capital 
cost for monitoring equipment is $997. Annual operation and maintenance 
costs are $4,982 over 3 years, averaging $1,661 per year. This estimate 
includes a one-time plan for demonstrating compliance, annual 
compliance certificate reports, notifications, and recordkeeping.
    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. The OMB 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 through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., 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 August 8, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by September 7, 2001. The 
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA 
proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
4, 26A, 311, and a method to measure HCN (section 63.7(c)(2)(i)). 
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary 
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable 
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 
2D, 2F, 2G, nor a method to measure HCN. The search and review results 
have been documented and are placed in the docket (A-2000-43) for this 
proposed rule.
    Five voluntary consensus standards: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, 
ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94 are incorporated by 
reference in EPA Method 311. One additional voluntary consensus 
standard was found in the search that is acceptable as an alternative 
to EPA Method 311. The voluntary consensus standard ISO 11890-2 Part 2, 
``Paints and Varnishes--Determination of Volatile Organic Compound 
(VOC) Content--Gas Chromatographic Method'' is acceptable as an 
alternative for the measurement of HAP content of adhesives for the 
purposes of this proposed rule.
    The search for emission measurement procedures identified eight 
other voluntary consensus standards applicable to this proposed rule. 
The EPA determined that six of these eight standards were impractical 
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed 
rule. Therefore, EPA does not propose to adopt these standards today. 
The reasons for this determination for the six methods are discussed 
below.

[[Page 41728]]

    The standard ISO 10780:1994, ``Stationary Source Emissions--
Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts,'' 
is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in this proposed rule. 
This standard recommends the use of L-shaped pitots, which historically 
have not been recommended by EPA because the S-type design has large 
openings which are less likely to plug up with dust.
    The standard ASTM D3464-2001, ``Standard Test Method Average 
Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' is impractical as an 
alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of this proposed rule 
primarily because applicability specifications are not clearly defined, 
e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits. Also, the lack of 
supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and 
specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately 
addressed by the standard, limit EPA's ability to make a definitive 
comparison of the method in these areas.
    The European standard EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ``Stationary Source 
Emissions--Manual Method of Determination of HCl--Part 1: Sampling of 
Gases Ratified European Text--Part 2: Gaseous Compounds Absorption 
Ratified European Text--Part 3: Adsorption Solutions Analysis and 
Calculation Ratified European Text,'' is impractical as an alternative 
to EPA Method 26A. Part 3 of this standard cannot be considered 
equivalent to EPA Method 26 or 26A because the sample absorbing 
solution (water) would be expected to capture both HCl and chlorine 
gas, if present, without the ability to distinguish between the two. 
The EPA Methods 26 and 26A use an acidified absorbing solution to first 
separate HCl and chlorine gas so that they can be selectively absorbed, 
analyzed, and reported separately. In addition, in EN 1911 the 
absorption efficiency for chlorine gas would be expected to vary as the 
pH of the water changed during sampling.
    The remaining two of the six voluntary consensus standards are 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this 
proposed rule because they are too general, too broad, or not 
sufficiently detailed to assure compliance with EPA regulatory 
requirements: ASTM D3796-90 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Practice for 
Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes,'' for EPA Method 2; and ASTM E337-84 
(Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Method for Measuring Humidity with a 
Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb Temperatures),'' for 
EPA Method 4; and ASTM D3154-91 ``Standard Method for Average Velocity 
in a Duct (Pilot Tube Method),'' for EPA Methods 1, 2 2C, and 4.
    The following two of the eight voluntary consensus standards 
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was 
conducted for the purposes of this proposed rule because they are under 
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow 
Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2); 
and ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport 
Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2. While we are 
not proposing to include these two voluntary consensus standards in 
today's action, the EPA will consider the standards when finalizing the 
rule.
    The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
in this proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should 
also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these voluntary 
consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to 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 a method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, 
Appendix A, was used).
    Sections 63.8800 and 63.8802 of the proposed standard list the EPA 
testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.8 of 
subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for 
permission to use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA 
testing methods.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication 
operations, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 31, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is 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 MMMMM to read as follows:
Subpart MMMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations

What this Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.8780  What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8782   Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8784   What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8786   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.8790   What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8794   What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8798   By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.8800   What performance tests and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for flame lamination?
63.8802   What methods must I use to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission limit for loop slitter adhesive use?
63.8804   What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?
63.8806   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8810   How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?
63.8812   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8816   What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8818   What reports must I submit and when?
63.8820   What records must I keep?
63.8822   In what form and how long must I keep my records?

[[Page 41729]]

Other Requirements and Information

63.8826   What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8828   Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8830   What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart MMMMM--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart MMMMM--Operating Limits for New or Reconstructed 
Flame Lamination Affected Sources
Table 3 to Subpart MMMMM--Performance Test Requirements for New or 
Reconstructed Flame Lamination Affected Sources
Table 4 to Subpart MMMMM--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits
Table 5 to Subpart MMMMM--Continuous Compliance with Emission Limits 
and Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart MMMMM--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart MMMMM--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart MMMMM

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.8780  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) emitted from flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication operations. This subpart also establishes requirements to 
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission 
standards.


Sec. 63.8782  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant site that operates a flame 
lamination affected source, as defined at Sec. 63.8784 (b)(2), and that 
is located at, or is part of a major emission source of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) or that operates a loop slitter affected source, as 
defined at Sec. 63.8784 (b)(1), that meets the criteria in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The loop slitter affected source uses one or more HAP-based 
adhesives at any time on or after [Date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register].
    (2) The loop slitter affected source is located at or is part of a 
major source of HAP.
    (b) A flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant site is a plant 
site where pieces of flexible polyurethane foam are bonded together or 
to other substrates using HAP-based adhesives or flame lamination.
    (c) A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the 
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year 
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.
    (d) This subpart does not apply to the following processes in 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Processes that produce flexible polyurethane or rebond foam as 
defined in subpart III of this part.
    (2) A research and development process.


Sec. 63.8784  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed 
affected source at facilities engaged in flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication.
    (b) The affected sources are defined in this section in paragraph 
(b)(1), loop slitter adhesive use, and paragraph (b)(2), flame 
lamination, of this section.
    (1) The loop slitter adhesive use affected source is the collection 
of all loop slitters and associated adhesive application equipment used 
to apply HAP-based adhesives to bond foam to foam at a flexible 
polyurethane foam fabrication plant site.
    (2) The flame lamination affected source is the collection of all 
flame lamination lines associated with the flame lamination of foam to 
any substrate at a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant site.
    (c)(1) A new affected source is one that commences construction 
after August 8, 2001 and meets the applicability criteria of 
Sec. 63.8782 at the time construction commences.
    (2) If you add one or more flame lamination lines at a plant site 
where flame lamination lines already exist, the added line(s) shall be 
a new affected source and meet new source requirements if the added 
line(s) has the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of any HAP 
or 25 tons or more per year of any combination of HAP.
    (d) A reconstructed affected source is one that commences 
reconstruction after August 8, 2001 and meets the criteria for 
reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.


Sec. 63.8786  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) If you start up your new or reconstructed affected source 
before [Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
then you must comply with the emission standards for new or 
reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than [Date of 
Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register].
    (2) If you start up your new or reconstructed affected source after 
[Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], then 
you must comply with the emission standards for new or reconstructed 
sources in this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing loop slitter affected source, you must 
comply with the emission standards for existing sources no later than 1 
year after [Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register].
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP and an 
affected source subject to this subpart, the provisions in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
    (1) A new affected source as specified at Sec. 63.8784(c) or a 
reconstructed affected source as specified at Sec. 63.8784(d) must be 
in compliance with this subpart upon startup.
    (2) An existing affected source as specified at Sec. 63.8784(e) 
must be in compliance with this subpart no later than 1 year after the 
date on which the area source became a major source.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8816 
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8816 and in subpart A of this 
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission standards in this subpart.
    (e) If you have a loop slitter affected source, you must begin 
collecting data prior to the compliance date specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section as necessary to demonstrate that your adhesives contain 
no HAP. The types of data necessary are described in Secs. 63.8802 and 
63.8810.

Emission Limitations


Sec. 63.8790  What emission limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart 
that applies to you.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to you.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8794  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) For each loop slitter adhesive use affected source, you must be 
in compliance with the requirements in this subpart at all times.
    (b) For each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, 
you

[[Page 41730]]

must be in compliance with the requirements in this subpart at all 
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (d) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source in 
Sec. 63.8786, and the date upon which continuous compliance monitoring 
systems have been installed and verified and any applicable operating 
limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation 
and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.
    (e) For each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, 
you must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (f) For each monitoring system required in this section for new or 
reconstructed flame lamination sources, you must develop and submit for 
approval a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the 
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) sampling 
probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each 
affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of 
control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last 
control device);
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction system; and
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (g) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address 
the ongoing procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Secs. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and 
(8), and 63.8804;
    (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
    (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c),(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8798  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) For each loop slitter affected source, you must conduct the 
initial compliance demonstration by the compliance date that is 
specified for your source in Sec. 63.8786.
    (b) For each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, 
you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8786 and 
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).


Sec. 63.8800  What performance tests and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for flame lamination?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions in 
Table 3 of this subpart.
    (c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
    (d) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each 
performance test required in this section, as specified in 
Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (e) You must determine the percent reduction of HAP emissions 
during the performance test according to paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) If you use chlorinated fire retardant foams, determine the 
percent reduction of hydrochloric acid (HCl) to represent HAP emissions 
from the source. If you do not use chlorinated fire retardant foams, 
determine the percent reduction of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) to represent 
HAP emissions from the source.
    (2) Calculate the concentration of HAP at the control device inlet 
and at the control device outlet using the procedures in the specified 
test method.
    (3) Compare the calculated HAP concentration at the control device 
inlet to the calculated HAP concentration at the control device outlet 
to determine the percent reduction over the period of the performance 
test, using equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU01.008

Where:

R = Efficiency of control device, percent.
Einlet, i = HAP concentration of control device inlet 
stream for test run i, mg/dscm.
Eoutlet, i = HAP concentration of control device outlet 
stream for test run i, mg/dscm.
n = Number of runs conducted for the performance test.

    (f) You must also meet the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) Conduct the performance tests using foams that are 
representative of foams typically used at your flame lamination 
affected source. If you use foams containing chlorinated fire 
retardants, you must conduct the performance tests using these foams.
    (2) Establish all applicable operating limits that correspond to 
the control system efficiency as described in Table 3 to this subpart.


Sec. 63.8802  What methods must I use to demonstrate compliance with 
the emission limitation for loop slitter adhesive use?

    To determine the HAP content in the adhesive used at your loop 
slitter affected source, use EPA Method 311 of appendix A of 40 CFR 
part 63, an approved alternative method, or any other reasonable means 
for determining the HAP content of your adhesives. Other reasonable 
means include, but are not limited to, a material safety data sheet 
(MSDS), provided it contains

[[Page 41731]]

appropriate information; a certified product data sheet (CPDS); or a 
manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet. You are not required 
to test the materials that you use, but the Administrator may require a 
test using EPA Method 311 (or an approved alternative method) to 
confirm the reported HAP content. If the results of an analysis by EPA 
Method 311 are different from the HAP content determined by another 
means, the EPA Method 311 results will govern compliance 
determinations.


Sec. 63.8804  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    (a) For each operating parameter that you are required by 
Sec. 63.8800(f)(2) to monitor, you must install, operate, and maintain 
each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.8794(f) and (g) and in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (6) of this section.
    (1) You must operate your CPMS at all times that the process is 
operating.
    (2) You must collect data from at least four equally spaced periods 
each hour.
    (3) For at least 75 percent of the hours in a 24-hour period, you 
must have valid data (as defined in your site-specific monitoring plan) 
for at least four equally spaced periods each hour.
    (4) For each hour that you have valid data from at least four 
equally spaced periods, you must calculate the hourly average value 
using all valid data.
    (5) You must calculate the daily average using all of the hourly 
averages calculated according to paragraph (a)(3) of this section for 
the 24-hour period.
    (6) You must record the results for each inspection, calibration, 
and validation check as specified in your site-specific monitoring 
plan.
    (b) For liquid flow monitoring devices such as various types of 
flow meters, including magnetic, mass, thermal, fluidic oscillating, 
vortex formation, turbine, and positive displacement, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment 
in or as close to a position that provides a representative flow;
    (2) You must use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 
uncertainty of 2 percent of the flow rate;
    (3) You must conduct at least semiannually a flow sensor 
calibration check; and
    (4) You must perform at least monthly inspections of all components 
for integrity, of all electrical connections for continuity, and of all 
mechanical connections for leakage.
    (c) For pH monitoring devices, you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must locate the pH sensor so that a representative pH is 
provided;
    (2) You must ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 
of the fluid to be measured;
    (3) You must check the pH meter's calibration on at least two 
points every 8 hours of process operation; and
    (4) You must perform at least monthly inspections of all components 
for integrity and of all electrical connections for continuity.
    (d) For pressure monitoring using devices such as manometers, 
gauges, and transducers (including strain gauges), you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You must locate the pressure sensor(s) so that a representative 
pressure is provided;
    (2) You must use a means to minimize or eliminate pulsating 
pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion;
    (3) You must use a gauge with a minimum measurement uncertainty of 
one-half inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement 
uncertainty of 1 percent of the pressure range;
    (4) You must conduct daily pressure tap pluggage checks and 
quarterly calibration checks with manometers for gauges or monthly 
calibration checks with manometers for transducers; and
    (5) You must conduct calibrations more frequently after prolonged 
excursions above the sensor's maximum rated operating pressure range.
    (e) If you install a control device that requires monitoring 
parameters other than those listed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of 
this section, you must install a CPMS in accordance with paragraph (a) 
of this section, and you must include the information in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (3) of this section in your site-specific monitoring 
plan, which is required at Sec. 63.8794(f).
    (1) Identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that 
the control or capture efficiency measured during the initial 
compliance test is maintained.
    (2) Discuss why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating 
ongoing compliance.
    (3) Identify the specific monitoring procedures.


Sec. 63.8806  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limit that applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
    (b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8800 and Table 3 to this subpart.
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8816(e) through (h).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8810  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) If you own or operate a loop slitter adhesive use affected 
source, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) Maintain a list of each adhesive and the manufacturer or 
supplier of each.
    (2) Maintain a record of EPA Method 311, approved alternative 
method, or other reasonable means of HAP content determinations 
indicating the mass percent of each HAP for each adhesive.
    (b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination 
affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section if you use a scrubber, or paragraph (b)(4) 
of this section if you use any other control device.
    (1) Keep records of the daily average scrubber inlet liquid flow 
rate.
    (2) Keep records of the daily average scrubber effluent pH.
    (3) If you use a venturi scrubber, keep records of daily average 
pressure drop across the venturi.
    (4) Keep records of operating parameter values for each operating 
parameter that applies to you.
    (c) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination 
affected source, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) Except for periods of monitoring malfunctions, associated 
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities 
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and 
span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at 
all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is 
operating. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
when the affected source is operating. A monitoring malfunction 
includes, but is not limited to, any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring device to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused by

[[Page 41732]]

poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
    (2) In data average calculations and calculations used to report 
emission or operating levels, you may not use data recorded during 
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, or recorded during 
required quality assurance or control activities. Nor may such data be 
used in fulfilling any applicable minimum data availability 
requirement. You must use all the data collected during all other 
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated 
control system.
    (3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (4) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.


Sec. 63.8812  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that 
applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 5 to this 
subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission limit and each operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this 
subpart that apply to you. For new or reconstructed flame lamination 
affected sources, this includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction. These instances are deviations from the operating limits 
in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.8818.
    (c) For each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, 
you must operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (d) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur at a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source during 
a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you 
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating 
in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The 
Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur at a new or 
reconstructed flame lamination affected source during a period of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the 
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
    (e) You also must meet the following requirements if you are 
complying with the adhesive use ban for loop slitter adhesive use 
described in Sec. 63.8790(a).
    (1) If, after you submit the Notification of Compliance Status, you 
use an adhesive for which you have not previously verified percent HAP 
mass using the methods in Sec. 63.8802, you must verify that each 
adhesive used in the affected source meets the emission limit, using 
any of the methods in Sec. 63.8802.
    (2) You must update the list of all the adhesives used at the 
affected source.
    (3) With the compliance report for the reporting period during 
which you used the new adhesive, you must submit the updated list of 
all adhesives and a statement certifying that, as purchased, each 
adhesive used at the affected source during the reporting period met 
the emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart.

Notification, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.8816  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.7(b) and 
(c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (h) that apply to you.
    (b) If you own or operate an existing loop slitter or flame 
lamination affected source, submit an initial notification no later 
than 120 days after [Date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register].
    (c) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed loop slitter or 
flame lamination affected source, submit the application for 
construction or reconstruction required by Sec. 63.9(b)(1)(iii) in lieu 
of the initial notification.
    (d) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination 
affected source, submit a notification of intent to conduct a 
performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test 
is scheduled to begin, as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you own or operate a loop slitter affected source, submit a 
Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii) 
within 60 days of the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.8786.
    (f) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination 
affected source, submit a Notification of Compliance Status according 
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii) that includes the results of the performance 
test conducted according to the requirements in Table 3 to this 
subpart. You must submit the notification before the close of business 
on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance 
test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
    (g) For each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, 
the Notification of Compliance Status must also include the information 
in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) that applies to you.
    (1) The operating parameter value averaged over the full period of 
the performance test (for example, average pH).
    (2) The operating parameter range within which HAP emissions are 
reduced to the level corresponding to meeting the applicable emission 
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (h) For each loop slitter adhesive use affected source, the 
Notification of Compliance Status must also include the information 
listed in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) A list of each adhesive used at the affected source, its HAP 
content (percent by mass), and the manufacturer or supplier of each.
    (2) A statement certifying that each adhesive that was used at the 
affected source during the reporting period met the emission limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart.


Sec. 63.8818  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 6 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each 
compliance report for new or reconstructed flame lamination affected 
sources semiannually according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.8786 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is 
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8786.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.8786.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.

[[Page 41733]]

    (c) For each loop slitter adhesive use affected source, you may 
submit annual compliance reports in place of semiannual reports.
    (d) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraph (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (e) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limit or operating limit) that applies to you, a statement 
that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the 
reporting period.
    (5) For each deviation from an emission limitation that occurs, the 
compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs 
(e)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (iii) Information on the number, duration, and cause for CPMS 
downtime incidents, if applicable, other than downtime associated with 
zero and span and other daily calibration checks.
    (f) The compliance report for a new or reconstructed flame 
lamination affected source must also contain the following information 
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction at your new or 
reconstructed flame lamination affected source during the reporting 
period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (2) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control in accordance with the monitoring plan, a statement that there 
were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the 
reporting period.
    (3) If there were periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control 
in accordance with the monitoring plan, the date, time, and duration of 
each out-of-control period.
    (g) The compliance report for a loop slitter adhesive use affected 
source must also contain the following information in paragraphs (g)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) For each annual reporting period during which you use an 
adhesive that was not included in the list submitted with the 
Notification of Compliance Status in Sec. 63.8816(h)(1), an updated 
list of all adhesives used at the affected source.
    (2) A statement certifying that each adhesive that was used at the 
affected source during the reporting period met the emission limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart.
    (h) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all 
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(3)(iii)(A). If 
an affected source submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 6 to 
this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(3)(iii)(A), 
and the compliance report includes all required information concerning 
deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating limit) 
in this subpart, submission of the compliance report shall be deemed to 
satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual 
monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance report shall not 
otherwise affect any obligation the affected source may have to report 
deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.
    (i) For each startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting 
period that occurs at a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected 
source and that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown and 
malfunction report.
    (1) An initial report containing a description of the actions taken 
for the event must be submitted by fax or telephone within 2 working 
days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan.
    (2) A followup report containing the information listed in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) must be submitted within 7 working days after the 
end of the event unless you have made alternative reporting 
arrangements with the permitting authority.


Sec. 63.8820  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep a copy of each notification and report that you 
submit to comply with this subpart, including all documentation 
supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance 
Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (b) For each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, 
you must also keep the following records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (2) Records of performance tests, as required in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (3) Records of operating parameter values.
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (c) For each loop slitter adhesive use affected source, you must 
keep the following records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) A list of each adhesive and the manufacturer or supplier of 
each.
    (2) A record of EPA Method 311, approved alternative method, or 
other reasonable means of determining the mass percent of total HAP for 
each adhesive used at the affected source.


Sec. 63.8822  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.8826  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

[[Page 41734]]

Sec. 63.8828  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) that cannot be 
delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as follows:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Secs. 63.8780, 
63.8782, 63.8784, 63.8786, and 63.8790.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.8830  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this 
section as follows:
    Adhesive means any chemical substance that is applied for the 
purpose of bonding foam to foam, foam to fabric, or foam to any other 
substrate, other than by mechanical means. Products used on humans and 
animals, adhesive tape, contact paper, or any other product with an 
adhesive incorporated onto it in an inert substrate shall not be 
considered adhesives under this subpart.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit); or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
    Flame lamination means the process of bonding flexible foam to one 
or more layers of material by heating the foam surface with an open 
flame.
    Flame lamination line means the flame laminator and associated 
rollers.
    HAP-based adhesive means an adhesive containing detectable HAP, 
according to EPA Method 311 or another approved alternative.
    Loop slitter means a machine used to create thin sheets of foam 
from the large blocks of foam or ``buns'' created at a slabstock 
flexible polyurethane foam production plant.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.

Tables

               Table 1 to Subpart MMMMM.--Emission Limits
[As stated in Sec.  63.8790(a), you must comply with the emission limits
                        in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each existing, new, or reconstructed  Limit emissions from adhesives
 loop slitter adhesive use affected       to zero HAP emissions.
 source.
2. Each new or reconstructed flame       Reduce HAP emissions by 90
 lamination affected source.              percent.
3. Each existing flame lamination        There are no emission limits
 affected sources.                        for existing flame lamination
                                          sources. However, you must
                                          submit an initial notification
                                          per Sec.  63.8816(b).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2 to Subpart MMMMM.--Operating Limits for New or Reconstructed
                    Flame Lamination Affected Sources
   [As stated in Sec.  63.8790(b), you must comply with the operating
                     limits in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Scrubber............................  a. Maintain the daily average
                                          scrubber inlet liquid flow
                                          rate above the minimum value
                                          established during the
                                          performance test.
                                         b. Maintain the daily average
                                          scrubber effluent pH within
                                          the operating range value
                                          established during the
                                          performance test.
                                         c. If you use a venturi
                                          scrubber, maintain the daily
                                          average pressure drop across
                                          the venturi within the
                                          operating range value
                                          established during the
                                          performance test.
2. Other type of control device to       Maintain your operating
 which flame lamination emissions are     parameter(s) within the ranges
 deducted.                                established during the
                                          performance test and according
                                          to your monitoring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41735]]


   Table 3 to Subpart MMMMM.--Performance Test Requirements for New or
             Reconstructed Flame Lamination Affected Sources
 [As stated in Sec.  63.8800, you must comply with the requirements for
  performance tests for new or reconstructed flame lamination affected
 sources in the following table using the requirements in rows 1 through
 5 of the table if you are measuring HCl and using a scrubber, row 6 if
 you are measuring HCN and using a scrubber, and row 7 if you are using
                       any other control device:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For each new or reconstructed                        According to the
    flame lamination affected         Using . . .          following
     source, you must . . .                           requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port's         Method 1 or 1A in   Sampling sites
 location and the number of        appendix A to       must be located
 traverse ports.                   part 60 of this     at the inlet and
                                   chapter.            outlet of the
                                                       scrubber and
                                                       prior to any
                                                       releases to the
                                                       atmosphere.
2. Determine velocity...........  Method 2, 2A, 2C,
                                   2D, 2F, or 2G in
                                   appendix A to
                                   part 60 of this
                                   chapter.
3. Determine gas molecular        Not applicable....  Assume a molecular
 weight.                                               weight of 29
                                                       (after moisture
                                                       correction) for
                                                       calculation
                                                       weight.
4. Measure mositure content of    Method 4 in
 the stack gas.                    appendix A to
                                   part 60 of the
                                   stack this
                                   chapter..
5. Measure HCl concentration if   Method 26A in       a. Measure total
 you use chlorinated fire          appendix A to       HCl emissions and
 retardants in the laminated       part 60 of this     determine the
 foam.                             chapter.            reduction
                                                       efficiency of the
                                                       control device
                                                       using Method 26A.
                                                      b. Collect
                                                       scrubber liquid
                                                       flow rate,
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH, and pressure
                                                       drop (pressure
                                                       drop data only
                                                       required for
                                                       venturi
                                                       scrubbers) every
                                                       15 minutes during
                                                       the entire
                                                       duration of each
                                                       1-hour test run,
                                                       and determine the
                                                       average scrubber
                                                       liquid flow rate,
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH, and pressure
                                                       drop (pressure
                                                       drop data only
                                                       required for
                                                       Venturi
                                                       scrubbers) over
                                                       the period of the
                                                       performance test
                                                       by computing the
                                                       average of all of
                                                       the 15-minute
                                                       readings.
6. Measure HCN concentration if   A method approved   a. Conduct the
 you do not use chlorinated fire   by the              performance test
 retardants in the laminated       Administrator.      according to the
 foam.                                                 site-specific
                                                       test plan
                                                       submitted
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                        63.7(c)(2)(i).
                                                       Measure total HCN
                                                       emissions and
                                                       determine the
                                                       reduction use
                                                       efficiency of the
                                                       control device.
                                                      b. Collect
                                                       scrubber liquid
                                                       flow rate,
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH, and pressure
                                                       drop (pressure
                                                       drop data only
                                                       required for the
                                                       venturi
                                                       scrubbers) every
                                                       15 minutes during
                                                       the entire
                                                       duration of each
                                                       1-hour test run,
                                                       and determine the
                                                       average scrubber
                                                       liquid flow rate,
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH, and pressure
                                                       drop (pressure
                                                       drop data only
                                                       required for
                                                       venturi
                                                       scrubbers) over
                                                       the period of the
                                                       performance test
                                                       by computing the
                                                       average of all of
                                                       the 15-minute
                                                       readings.
7. Determine control device       EPA-approved        a. Conduct the
 efficiency and establish          methods and data    performance test
 operating parameter limit with    from the            according to the
 which you will demonstrate        continuous          site-specific
 continuous compliance with the    parameter           test plan
 emission limit that applies to    monitoring system.  submitted
 the source if you use any                             according to Sec.
 control device other than a                            63.7(c)(2)(i).
 scrubber.                                            b. Collect
                                                       operating
                                                       parameter data as
                                                       specified in the
                                                       site-specific
                                                       test plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 4 to Subpart MMMMM.--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits
  [As stated in Sec.  63.8806, you must comply with the requirements to
  demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emission limits in
                          the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You have
                                   For the following     demonstrated
            For . . .             emission limit . .  initial compliance
                                           .               if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each new, reconstructed, or    Limit emissions     You do not use HAP-
 existing loop slitter adhesive    from adhesives to   based adhesives.
 use affected source.              zero HAP
                                   emissions.
2. Each new or reconstructed      Reduce HAP          The average HAP
 flame lamination affected         emissions by 90     emissions,
 source using a scrubber.          percent.            measured over the
                                                       period of the
                                                       performance
                                                       test(s), are
                                                       reduced by 90
                                                       percent.
3. Each new or reconstructed      Reduce HAP          The average HAP
 flame lamination affected         emissions by 90     emissions,
 source using any other control    percent.            measured over the
 device.                                               period of the
                                                       performance
                                                       test(s), are
                                                       reduced by 90
                                                       percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 41736]]


  Table 5 to Subpart MMMMM.--Continuous Compliance With Emission Limits
                          and Operating Limits
[As stated in Sec.  63.8812(a), you must comply with the requirements to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limits or
                operating limits in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   For the emission        You must
                                       limits or          demonstrate
            For . . .             operating limits .      continuous
                                          . .          compliance by . .
---------------------------------------------------------------.--------
1. Each new, reconstructed, or    Limit emissions     Not using HAP-
 existing loop slitter affected    from adhesives to   based adhesives.
 source.                           zero HAP source.
2. Each new or reconstructed      a. Maintain the     i. Collecting the
 flame lamination affected         daily average       scrubber inlet
 source using a scrubber.          scrubber inlet      liquid flow rate
                                   liquid flow rate    and effluent pH
                                   above the minimum   monitoring data
                                   value established   according to Sec.
                                   during the           63.8804(a)
                                   performance.        through (c).
                                  b. Maintain the     ii. Reducing the
                                   daily average       data to 1-hour
                                   scrubber effluent   and daily block
                                   pH within the       averages
                                   operating range     according to the
                                   established         requirements in
                                   during the          Sec.  63.8804(a).
                                   performance test.
                                  c. Maintain the     iii. Maintaining
                                   daily average       each daily
                                   pressure drop       average scrubber
                                   across the          inlet liquid flow
                                   venturi within      rate above the
                                   the operating       minimum value
                                   range established   established
                                   during the          during the
                                   performance test.   performance test.
                                   If you use
                                   another type of
                                   scrubber (e.g.,
                                   packed bed or
                                   spray tower
                                   scrubber),
                                   monitoring
                                   pressure drop is
                                   not required.
                                                      iv. Maintaining
                                                       the daily average
                                                       scrubber effluent
                                                       pH within the
                                                       operating range
                                                       established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test.
                                                      v. If you use a
                                                       venturi scrubber,
                                                       maintaining the
                                                       daily average
                                                       pressure drop
                                                       across the
                                                       venturi within
                                                       the operating
                                                       range established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test.
3. Each new or reconstructed      Maintain the daily  a. Collected the
 flame lamination affected         average operating   operating
 source using any other control    parameters above    parameter data
 device.                           the minimum value   according the
                                   established         site-specific
                                   during the          test plan.
                                   performance test,
                                   or within the
                                   range established
                                   during the
                                   performance test,
                                   as applicable.
                                                      b. Reducing the
                                                       data to one-hour
                                                       averages
                                                       according to the
                                                       requirements in
                                                       Sec.  63.8804(a).
                                                      c. Maintaining the
                                                       daily average
                                                       rate above the
                                                       minimum value
                                                       established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test,
                                                       or within the
                                                       range established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test,
                                                       as applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 6 to Subpart MMMMM.--Requirements for Reports
[As stated in Sec.  63.8818(a), you must submit a compliance report that
 includes the information in Sec.  63.8818(e) through (g) as well as the
 information in the following table. Rows 1 and 3 of the following table
 apply to loop slitter affected sources. Rows 1 through 5 apply to flame
lamination affected sources. You must also submit startup, shutdown, and
malfunction reports according to the requirements in the following table
 if you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected
                                source.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Then you must submit a report
                If . . .                        or statement that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. There are no deviations from any      There were no deviations from
 emission limitations that apply to you.  the emission limitations
                                          during the reporting period.
2. There were no periods during which    There were no periods during
 the operating parameter monitoring       which the CPMS were out-of-
 systems were out-of-control in           control during the reporting
 accordance with the monitoring plan.     period.
3. There was a deviation from any        Contains the information in
 emission limitation during the           Sec.  63.8818(e)(5).
 reporting period.
4. There were periods during which the   Contains the information in
 operating parameter monitoring systems   Sec.  63.8818(f)(3).
 were out-of-control in accordance with
 the monitoring plan..
5. There was a startup, shutdown, or     Contains the information in
 malfunction at a new or reconstructed    Sec.  63.8818(i).
 flame lamination affected source
 during the reporting period that is
 not consistent with your startup,
 shutdown, and malfunction plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table 7 to Subpart MMMMM.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart MMMMM
  [As stated in Sec.  63.8826, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
                                              the following table:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to Subpart
               Citation                      Requirement                 MMMMM                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1...........................  Initial applicability    Yes....................
                                        determination;
                                        applicability after
                                        standard established;
                                        permit requirements;
                                        extensions;
                                        notifications.

[[Page 41737]]

 
Sec.  63.2...........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          are found in Sec.
                                                                                          63.8830.
Sec.  63.3...........................  Units and abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.  63.4...........................  Prohibited activities;   Yes....................
                                        compliance date;
                                        circumvention,
                                        severability.
Sec.  63.5...........................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        reconstruction
                                        applicability;
                                        applications;
                                        approvals.
Sec.  63.6(a)........................  Compliance with          Yes....................
                                        standards and
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements--applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(4).................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8786 specifies
                                        new or reconstructed                              compliance dates.
                                        sources.
Sec.  63.6(b)(5).....................  Notification if          Yes....................
                                        commenced construction
                                        or reconstruction
                                        after proposal.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6).....................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.6(b)(7).....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8786 specifies
                                        new or reconstructed                              compliance dates
                                        area sources specifies
                                        that become major.
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2).................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8786 specifies
                                        existing sources.                                 compliance dates.
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4).................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(5).....................  Compliance dates for     Yes....................  Sec.  63.8786 specifies
                                        existing area sources                             compliance dates.
                                        that specifies become
                                        major.
Sec.  63.6(d)........................  [Reserved].............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2).................  Operation and            Yes....................
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).....................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................  Only applies to new or
                                        malfunction plans.                                reconstructed flame
                                                                                          lamination affected
                                                                                          sources.
Sec.  63.6(f)(1).....................  Compliance except        Yes....................  Only applies to new or
                                        during SSM.                                       reconstructed flame
                                                                                          lamination affected
                                                                                          sources.
Sec.  63.6(f)(2)-(3).................  Methods for determining  Yes....................
                                        compliance.
Sec.  63.6(g)........................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        nonopacity emission
                                        standard.
Sec.  63.6(h)........................  Compliance with opacity/ No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                        visible emission                                  specify opacity or
                                        standards.                                        visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)........................  Extension of compliance  Yes....................
                                        with emission
                                        standards.
Sec.  63.6(j)........................  Presidential compliance  Yes....................
                                        exemption.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2).................  Performance test dates.  Yes....................  Except for loop slitter
                                                                                          affected sources as
                                                                                          specified in Sec.
                                                                                          63.8798(a).
Sec.  63.7(a)(3).....................  Administrator's section  Yes....................
                                        114 authority to
                                        require a performance
                                        test.
Sec.  63.7(b)........................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test and
                                        rescheduling.
Sec.  63.7(c)........................  Quality assurance        Yes....................
                                        program and site-
                                        specific test plans.
Sec.  63.7(d)........................  Performance testing      Yes....................
                                        facilities.
Sec.  63.7(e)(1).....................  Conditions for           Yes....................
                                        conducting performance
                                        tests.
Sec.  63.7(f)........................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        test method.
Sec.  63.7(g)........................  Performance test data    Yes....................
                                        analysis,
                                        recordkeeping, and
                                        reporting.
Sec.  63.7(h)........................  Waiver of performance    Yes....................
                                        tests.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(3).................  Applicability of         Yes....................  Unless otherwise
                                        monitoring                                        specified, all of Sec.
                                        requirements.                                      63.8 applies only to
                                                                                          new or reconstructed
                                                                                          flame lamination
                                                                                          sources. Additional
                                                                                          monitoring
                                                                                          requirements for these
                                                                                          sources are found in
                                                                                          Secs.  63.8794(f) and
                                                                                          (g) and 63.8804.
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).....................  Monitoring with flares.  No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                                                                          refer directly or
                                                                                          indirectly to Sec.
                                                                                          63.11.
Sec.  63.8(b)........................  Conduct of monitoring    Yes....................
                                        and procedures when
                                        there are multiple
                                        effluents and multiple
                                        monitoring systems.
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(3).................  Continuous monitoring    Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        system (CMS) operation                            Secs.  63.8794(f) and
                                        and maintenance.                                  (g).
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).....................  Continuous monitoring    Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        system requirements                               Sec.  63.8794(g).
                                        during breakdown, out-
                                        of-control, repair,
                                        maintenance, and high-
                                        level calibration
                                        drifts.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).....................  Continuous opacity       No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                        monitoring system                                 have opacity or
                                        (COMS) minimum                                    visible emission
                                        procedures.                                       standards.

[[Page 41738]]

 
Sec.  63.8(c)(6).....................  Zero and high level      Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        calibration checks.                               Sec.  63.8794(f).
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8).................  Out-of-control periods,  Yes....................
                                        including reorting.
Sec.  63.8(d)-(e)....................  Quality control program  No.....................  Applies as modified by
                                        and CMS performance                               Sec.  63.8794(f) and
                                        evaluation.                                       (g).
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5).................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        monitoring method.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).....................  Alternative to relative  No.....................  Only applies to sources
                                        accuracy test.                                    that use continuous
                                                                                          emissions monitoring
                                                                                          systems (CEMS).
Sec.  63.8(g)........................  Data reduction.........  Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                                                                          Sec.  63.8794(g).
Sec.  63.9(a)........................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        requirements--applicab
                                        ility.
Sec.  63.9(b)........................  Initial notifications..  Yes....................  Except Sec.  63.8816(c)
                                                                                          requires new or
                                                                                          reconstructed affected
                                                                                          sources to submit the
                                                                                          application for
                                                                                          construction or
                                                                                          reconstruction
                                                                                          required by Sec.
                                                                                          63.9(b)(1)(iii) in
                                                                                          lieu of the initial
                                                                                          notification.
Sec.  63.9(c)........................  Request for compliance   Yes....................
                                        extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)........................  Notification that a new  Yes....................
                                        source is subject to
                                        special compliance
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.9(e)........................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        performance test.
Sec.  63.9(f)........................  Notification of visible  No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                        emissions/opacity test.                           have opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.  63.9(g)(1).....................  Additional CMS           Yes....................
                                        notifications--date of
                                        CMS performance
                                        evaluation.
Sec.  63.9(g)(2).....................  Use of COMS data.......  No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          COMS.
Sec.  63.9(g)(3).....................  Alternative to relative  No.....................  Applies only to sources
                                        accuracy testing.                                 with CEMS.
Sec.  63.9(h)........................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        compliance status.
Sec.  63.9(i)........................  Adjustment of submittal  Yes....................
                                        deadlines.
Sec.  63.9(j)........................  Change in previous       Yes....................
                                        information.
Sec.  63.10(a).......................  Recordkeeping/reporting  Yes....................
                                        applicability.
Sec.  3.10(b)(1).....................  General recordkeeping    Yes....................  Secs.  63.8820 and
                                        requirements.                                     63.8822 specify
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          recordkeeping
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xi)............  Records related to       Yes....................  Only applies to new or
                                        startup, shutdown, and                            reconstructed flame
                                        malfunction periods                               lamination affected
                                        and CMS.                                          sources.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii)...............  Records when under       Yes....................
                                        waiver.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..............  Records when using       No.....................  Applies only to sources
                                        alternative to                                    with CEMS.
                                        relative accuracy test.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv)...............  All documentation        Yes....................
                                        supporting initial
                                        notification and
                                        notification of
                                        compliance status.
Sec.  63.10(b)(3)....................  Recordkeeping            Yes....................
                                        requirements for
                                        applicability
                                        determinations.
Sec.  63.10(c).......................  Additional               Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        recordkeeping                                     Sec.  63.8794(g).
                                        requirements for
                                        sources with CMS.
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)....................  General reporting        Yes....................  Sec.  63.8818 specifies
                                        requirements.                                     additional reporting
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2)....................  Performance test         Yes....................
                                        results.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)....................  Opacity or visible       No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                        emissions observations.                           specify opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)....................  Progress reports for     Yes....................
                                        sources with
                                        compliance extensions.
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)....................  Startup, shutdown, and   Yes....................  Only applies to new or
                                        malfunction reports.                              reconstructed flame
                                                                                          lamination affected
                                                                                          sources.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)....................  Additional CMS reports-- Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        general.                                          Sec.  63.8794(g).
Sec.  63.10(e)(2)(i).................  Results of CMS           Yes....................  Applies as modified by
                                        performance                                       Sec.  63.8794(g).
                                        evaluations.
Sec.  63.10(e)(2)(ii)................  Results of COMS          No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                        performance                                       require the use of
                                        evaluations.                                      COMS.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)....................  Excess emissions/CMS     Yes....................  Only applies to new or
                                        performance reports.                              reconstructed flame
                                                                                          lamination affected
                                                                                          sources.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)....................  Continuous opacity       No.....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                        monitoring system data                            require the use of
                                        reports.                                          COMS.
Sec.  63.10(f).......................  Recordkeeping/reporting  Yes....................
                                        waiver.
Sec.  63.11..........................  Control device           No.....................  Facilities subject to
                                        requirements--applicab                            subpart MMMMM do not
                                        ility.                                            use flares as control
                                                                                          devices.
Sec.  63.12..........................  State authority and      Yes....................  Sec.  63.8828 lists
                                        delegations.                                      those sections of
                                                                                          subparts MMMMM and A
                                                                                          that are not
                                                                                          delegated.
Sec.  63.13..........................  Addresses..............  Yes....................

[[Page 41739]]

 
Sec.  63.14..........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                        reference.                                        incorporate any
                                                                                          material by reference.
Sec.  63.15..........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        information/
                                        confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-19603 Filed 8-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P