National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: July 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 145)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44011-44036]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29jy05-42]
[[Page 44012]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2003-0048; FRL-7947-8]
RIN 2060-AM78

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood
and Composite Wood Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On July 30, 2004, EPA promulgated national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the plywood and composite
wood products (PCWP) source category. Stakeholders expressed concern
with some of the final rule requirements, including definitions; the
emissions testing procedures required for facilities demonstrating
eligibility for the low-risk subcategory; stack height calculations to
be used in low-risk subcategory eligibility demonstrations; and
permitting and timing issues associated with the low-risk subcategory
eligibility demonstrations. In this action, EPA proposes amendments to
the final PCWP NESHAP to address these issues and to correct any other
inconsistencies that were discovered during the review process. This
action also clarifies some common applicability questions. We are
seeking comment on the provisions of the final PCWP rule outlined in
this action. We are not requesting comments addressing other provisions
of the final PCWP rule.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2005.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 8, 2005, a public hearing will be held on
August 15, 2005. For further information on the public hearing and
requests to speak, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0048 (Legacy Docket ID No. A-98-44) by one of the following
methods:
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
? Fax: (202) 566-1741.
? Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
? Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0048
(Legacy Docket ID No. A-98-44). EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. EPA EDOCKET and the Federal
regulations.gov websites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held on
August 15, 2005 at the EPA facility, Research Triangle Park, NC or an
alternative site nearby. Persons interested in attending the hearing or
wishing to present oral testimony should notify Ms. Mary Tom Kissell at
least 2 days in advance of the public hearing (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble). The public hearing will
provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or
arguments concerning this proposed rule.
Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for today's
proposed amendments, including both Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0048 and
Legacy Docket ID No. A-98-44. The official public docket consists of
the documents specifically referenced in today's proposed amendments,
any public comments received, and other information related to the
proposed amendments. All items may not be listed under both docket
numbers, so interested parties should inspect both docket numbers to
ensure that they have received all materials relevant to today's
proposed amendments. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information,
and questions about the public hearing, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell,
Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division,
Mailcode: C439-03, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541-4516; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address:
kissell.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:

I. General Information
A. Do these proposed amendments apply to me?
B. How do I submit CBI?
C. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. Amendments to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 63
B. Amendments to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 63
C. Other Amendments to the Rule
V. Additional Clarifications
A. Integrated Drying Systems Where Combustion Units That Heat
the Dryers Are Used as Control Devices
B. Applicability of the PCWP Rule to Hot Pressing of Veneers
onto a Substrate

[[Page 44013]]

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. General Information

A. Do these proposed amendments apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by today's proposed
amendments include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC code \a\ NAICS code \b\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... 2421 321999 Sawmills with lumber kilns.
2435 321211 Hardwood plywood and veneer plants.
2436 321212 Softwood plywood and veneer plants.
2493 321219 Reconstituted wood products plants
(particleboard, medium density fiberboard,
hardboard, fiberboard, and oriented
strandboard plants).
2439 321213 Structural wood members, not elsewhere
classified (engineered wood products
plants).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industrial Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by today's
proposed amendments. To determine whether your facility is affected by
today's proposed amendments, you should examine the applicability
criteria in Sec. 63.2231 of the final rule. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of today's proposed amendments to a
particular entity, consult Ms. Mary Tom Kissell listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How do I submit CBI?

Do not submit this information to EPA through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.

C. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's proposed amendments also will be available on the World Wide
Web (WWW) through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
the Administrator's signature, a copy of these proposed amendments will
be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

II. Background

On July 30, 2004, we promulgated NESHAP for Plywood and Composite
Wood Products Manufacturing as subpart DDDD in 40 CFR part 63 (69 FR
45944). Subpart DDDD contains two appendices: an alternative procedure
for determining capture efficiency from hot press enclosures (appendix
A to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63), and methodology and criteria for
demonstrating that an affected source is part of the low-risk
subcategory of PCWP manufacturing affected sources (appendix B to
subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63). Today we are proposing corrections and
clarifications to subpart DDDD and both of the appendices to subpart
DDDD. For subpart DDDD, we are proposing several changes to ensure that
the rule is implemented as intended: (1) Amend the sampling location
for coupled control devices; (2) amend language to clarify rule
applicability during unscheduled startups and shutdowns; (3) add
language to clarify rule applicability for affected sources with no
process units subject to compliance options or work practice
requirements; and (4) amend selected definitions. A minor numbering
error is proposed to be corrected in appendix A to subpart DDDD. The
majority of the amendments discussed in today's action are being
proposed for appendix B to subpart DDDD. We are proposing amendments to
appendix B to subpart DDDD to reduce the number of emissions tests
required while ensuring that emissions from all PCWP process units are
considered when demonstrating eligibility for the low-risk subcategory.
For emission points that would still require emission tests, we are
proposing that the emissions tests may be conducted after the low-risk
demonstration is submitted. We are also proposing that physical changes
necessary to ensure low risk may be completed after the low-risk
demonstration is submitted. We are proposing to clarify the calculation
of average stack height and some timing issues related to low-risk
demonstrations, including the deadline for submitting low-risk
demonstrations. Furthermore, we are proposing to amend subpart A to 40
CFR part 63 and subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and appendix B to
subpart DDDD to allow use of a new hazardous air pollutants (HAP) test
method developed by the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement (NCASI).
Following promulgation of the PCWP rule, the Administrator received
a petition for reconsideration filed by the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) and Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) pursuant to
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).\1\ The petition requested

[[Page 44014]]

reconsideration of nine aspects of the final rule: (1) Risk assessment
methodology; (2) background pollution and co-located emission sources;
(3) dose-response value used for formaldehyde; (4) costs and benefits
of the low-risk subcategory; (5) ecological risk; (6) legal basis for
the risk-based approach; (7) maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) compliance date for affected sources previously qualifying for
the low-risk subcategory; (8) startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
provisions; and (9) title V implementation mechanism for the risk-based
approach. With the exception of the petitioners' issue with the SSM
provisions in subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63, all of the petitioners'
issues relate to the risk-based approach adopted in the final rule. The
issues raised in the petition for reconsideration are broader in scope
than the issues addressed in today's proposed amendments. We have
published a separate notice of reconsideration to initiate rulemaking
by requesting comments on the issues in the petition for
reconsideration, including the full content of appendix B to subpart
DDDD. We intend to address all comments received on the notice of
reconsideration and today's proposed amendments by the time we finalize
the amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In addition to the petition for reconsideration, four
petitions for judicial review of the final PCWP rule were filed with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by NRDC and
Sierra Club (No. 04-1323, D.C. Cir.), EIP (No. 04-1235, D.C. Cir.),
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (No. 04-1328, D.C. Cir.), and Norbord
Incorporated (No. 04-1329, D.C. Cir.). The four cases have been
consolidated. In addition, the following parties have filed as
interveners: American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), Hood
Industries, Scotch Plywood, Coastal Lumber Company, Composite Panel
Association, APA-The Engineered Wood Association, American Furniture
Manufacturers Association, NRDC, Sierra Club, and EIP. Finally, the
Formaldehyde Council, Inc. and the State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators and Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) are participating in the
litigation as amicus curiae.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

Today's proposed amendments to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and
its appendices are summarized in table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1.--Summary of the Proposed Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 63.2232(b) and Amend definition of ``affected source''
63.2292. to include the combustion unit exhaust
streams used to direct-fire process
units.
Sec. 63.2250(a)............ Amend the rule's language to clarify the
applicability of the compliance options
and operating requirements during
unscheduled startups and shutdowns.
Sec. 63.2252............... Add a section to clarify that process
units that are not subject to compliance
options or work practice requirements
(e.g., lumber kilns) are excluded from
the performance testing, monitoring, SSM
plan, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements, except for the initial
notification requirements.
Sec. 63.2262(d)(1)......... Allow testing between a wet control
device followed by a HAP control device.
Sec. 63.2269(c)............ Amend section to correct numbering of
cross-referenced paragraphs.
Sec. 63.2292............... Amend the definition of ``tube dryer'' to
clarify that heat is applied in the
dryer to reduce the moisture content of
the wood fibers or particles. Amend the
definition of ``plywood and composite
wood products manufacturing facility''
to clarify the products covered by
subpart DDDD. Amend the definition of
``plywood'' to clarify that plywood
products may be curved or flat. Add
definitions of ``molded particleboard''
and ``engineered wood product.''
Sec. 63.2292 and Appendix Move the definition of ``direct-fired
B, section 15. process unit'' from section 15 of
appendix B to subpart DDDD to Sec.
63.2292 of subpart DDDD.
Table 4, Lines 6-8........... Allow NCASI Method ISS/FP-A105.01 for
testing of formaldehyde, methanol, and
total HAP.
Table 4, line 10 and Appendix Clarify that measured emissions divided
B, Table 2, line 10. by the capture efficiency provides the
emission rate for unenclosed and
uncontrolled presses and board coolers.
Appendix A, section 10....... Correct misnumbering of sections 10.4 and
10.5.
Appendix B, sections 4(a), Amend terminology to refer to ``emission
5(a), 6(a) through (c), and point'' instead of ``process unit.''
Equations 1 and 2.
Appendix B, section 5(a) and Add Table 2A and conforming text
Table 2A. specifying which process units must be
tested and which process units may use
emission factors or engineering
estimates to estimate emissions.
Appendix B, section 5(f)(1).. Add reference to NCASI IM/CAN/WP 99.02,
EPA Method 18, and NCASI Method ISS/FP-
A105.01.
Appendix B, section 5(f)(2).. Allow use of other EPA Method 29
laboratory analysis procedures with
detection limits equal to or lower than
atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS)
when claiming zero for non-detect HAP
metals measurements.
Appendix B, section 5(i)..... Allow use of previous emissions test
results (e.g., NCASI IM/CAN/WP 99.01).
Appendix B, section 5(j)..... Allow only one of multiple similar
process units at a plant site to be
tested (e.g., one of three veneer dryers
at a plant).
Appendix B, section 5(k)..... Specify requirements for developing
emissions estimates according to Table
2A.
Appendix B, section 6(a)..... Amend to clarify that section 6(a)
applies when emissions estimation or
testing is performed.
Appendix B, section 6(a)..... Add equations for calculation of
carcinogen and non-carcinogen weighted-
average stack height.
Appendix B, sections 6(b), Amend to clarify that weighted-average
6(c), 8(b)(1), and 8(b)(3). stack height calculations must be used.
Appendix B, section 7(a)..... Amend to correct Web site address
Appendix B, section 8(a)(3).. Require submittal of emissions estimate
calculations with low-risk
demonstrations.
Appendix B, section 10(a).... Amend date for existing sources to
conduct emissions tests and to submit
demonstrations of eligibility for the
low-risk subcategory.
Appendix B, section 10(c).... Amend date for new sources to conduct
emissions tests and to submit
demonstrations of eligibility for the
low-risk subcategory.
Appendix B, section 11(b).... Amend to clarify that the parameters that
defined the affected source as part of
the low-risk subcategory must be
submitted for incorporation into its
title V permit, as opposed to having the
permit revised before the MACT
compliance date.
Appendix B, section 15....... Add definitions of various process units
not defined in subpart DDDD and move
definition of ``direct-fired process
unit'' to Sec. 63.2292.

[[Page 44015]]

Appendix B, Table 2.......... Renumber as Table 2B. Replace footnote 1
related to benzene and acrolein testing
with a footnote noting that direct-fired
process units fired with only natural
gas or propane are exempt from HAP
metals testing.
Appendix B, Table 2, line 5.. Allow NCASI Method ISS/FP-A105.01 for
testing of acetaldehyde, acrolein,
formaldehyde, and phenol.
Appendix B, Table 2, line 6.. Allow use of NCASI IM/CAN/WP 99.02 or EPA
Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)
for benzene testing.
Appendix B, Table 3.......... Change column heading to ``distance to
property boundary.''
Appendix B, Tables 3 and 4... Delete footnote regarding units of
measure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. Amendments to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 63

1. Sampling Location
It is common in the PCWP industry for multiple add-on control
devices to be used in series (e.g., a wet electrostatic precipitator
(WESP) for control of particulate matter (PM) followed by a thermal
oxidizer for control of organic HAP and volatile organic compounds
(VOC)). Some types of PM control devices have no effect on HAP
emissions, including cyclones, multiclones, and baghouses. Wet control
devices such as wet scrubbers and WESP are used primarily for PM
control but may also affect (either positively or negatively) HAP
emissions. The proposed rule did not specify where inlet sampling sites
should be located when the HAP control device is preceded by a wet
scrubber or WESP. As a result of industry comments on the proposed
rule, Sec. 63.2262(d)(1) of the final PCWP rule requires that, ``* * *
for HAP-altering controls in sequence, such as a wet control device
followed by a thermal oxidizer, sampling sites must be located at the
functional inlet of the control sequence (e.g., prior to the wet
control device) and at the outlet of the control sequence (e.g.,
thermal oxidizer outlet) and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.''
Following signature of the final rule, a stakeholder experienced
with testing PCWP process units indicated that some coupled control
systems are configured such that obtaining representative emissions
measurements at sampling locations prior to the wet control device is
not possible (e.g., inlet sampling locations fail to meet the criteria
in Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A). However, representative
sampling could be accomplished at the outlet to the wet control device
and inlet to the organic HAP control device. For those situations where
coupled control systems are used to meet a compliance option that
requires inlet sampling, we agree that sampling at the inlet of the HAP
control device is sufficient and are proposing to amend the language in
Sec. 63.2262(d)(1) to allow this alternative.
2. Definitions
Tube dryer. Unlike in the proposed PCWP rule, primary tube dryers
and secondary tube dryers are treated as separate process units in the
final rule as a result of public comments received on the proposed rule
(see 69 FR 45961-45962, July 30, 2004). Definitions of primary tube
dryer and secondary tube dryer were added to the final rule to
distinguish between the two types of tube dryers. The final rule also
contains an associated definition of ``tube dryer,'' which is the same
definition that was proposed. Following signature of the final rule,
some industry representatives expressed concern that the definitions of
tube dryer and secondary tube dryer could be misinterpreted to include
ductwork used to pneumatically transfer hot wood furnish from a primary
tube dryer to a holding bin, even though no heat is applied to the
furnish as would occur for a secondary tube dryer. The promulgated
definition indicates that the tube dryer is ``* * * operated at
elevated temperature and used to reduce the moisture of wood * * *''
(which could occur with hot material passing though a duct even if no
heat is applied). Given that tube dryers look like ductwork, we agree
that this could be confusing to permitting authorities. To prevent
misinterpretations and clarify that heat is applied in the tube dryer,
we are proposing to amend the definition of ``tube dryer'' to replace
the words ``operated at elevated temperature and used'' with ``operated
by applying heat.''
Affected source. Following Administrator signature of the final
PCWP rule, it was brought to our attention that applicability of the
final PCWP rule and the Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and
Process Heaters NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD; referred to as
the ``Boilers/Process Heaters rule'' throughout the remainder of this
preamble) was unclear with respect to combustion units that direct-fire
dryers. When a combustion unit supplies heat by directly exhausting
combustion gas through a dryer, we would consider the dryer to be a
``direct-fired dryer.'' The HAP emissions from a direct-fired dryer are
actually a combination of the emissions from the combustion unit
exhausting into the dryer and the emissions that result from drying the
wood. Because the final PCWP rule regulates emissions from direct-fired
dryers, those combustion unit exhaust streams that direct-fire dryers
would not be subject to the requirements of the final Boilers/Process
Heaters rule. Section 63.7491(l) of the final Boilers/Process Heaters
rule states that any boiler or process heater specifically listed as an
affected source in another standard under 40 CFR part 63 is not subject
to the Boilers/Process Heaters rule. Confusion has resulted because the
PCWP affected source definition contains no mention of combustion units
(e.g., boilers or process heaters). To clarify applicability of the
final PCWP rule, we are proposing to amend the definition of ``affected
source'' to clearly state that combustion unit exhaust streams used to
direct-fire dryers are part of the PCWP affected source.
Our proposed amendment to the definition of ``affected source''
specifically refers to ``any combustion unit exhaust stream'' rather
than to individual combustion units. There are numerous configurations
of combustion units and drying operations in the PCWP industry
including, for example, suspension burners that are built into
individual dryers and stand-alone combustion units. Stand-alone
combustion units can have several exhaust streams including, for
example, exhaust streams that directly fire multiple dryers and exhaust
streams that provide heat for other uses (e.g., indirect heat for a
thermal oil heater). The exhaust streams that directly fire dryers
would be part of the PCWP

[[Page 44016]]

affected source because the combustion gases come into direct contact
with the wood material, and the dryer exhaust is a mixture of
combustion gases and process gases. An exhaust stream that supplies
indirect heat for other uses would be part of the PCWP affected source
if it is eventually routed through the direct-fired dryers, such that
it too contacts the wood material and becomes a mixture of combustion
gases and process gases. However, if the indirect heat exhaust stream
does not routinely pass through the direct-fired dryers, then this
exhaust stream would be subject to the final Boilers/Process Heaters
rule. Thus, as stated in the preamble to the final PCWP rule (see 69 FR
45961 and 45963, July 30, 2004), there are combustion units in the PCWP
industry that can be subject to both the PCWP and Boilers/Process
Heaters final rules. We refer to ``combustion unit exhaust stream'' in
our proposed amendment to clarify that different exhaust streams must
be evaluated separately to determine applicability of the PCWP and
Boilers/Process Heaters final rules for those individual exhaust streams.
Direct-fired process unit. In tandem with our proposed addition to
the definition of ``affected source,'' we are also proposing to move
the definition of ``direct-fired process unit'' from appendix B to
subpart DDDD to Sec. 63.2292 of subpart DDDD. Previously, the
definition of ``direct-fired process unit'' was only needed in appendix
B to subpart DDDD; however, since the proposed amendment to the
``affected source'' definition refers to direct firing, the definition
of ``direct-fired process unit'' would be needed for subpart DDDD as
well. Appendix B to subpart DDDD references all of the definitions in
Sec. 63.2292 of subpart DDDD.
Plywood and composite wood products manufacturing facility.
Following promulgation of the PCWP rule, we have received questions
regarding applicability of the final PCWP rule to facilities that
manufacture molded particleboard products. The promulgated definition
of ``plywood and composite wood products manufacturing facility'' has
caused some confusion because it does not specifically mention molded
particleboard manufacturing. Molded particleboard is produced by hot
pressing a mixture of wood particles and resin into a shape (e.g., a
pallet, furniture part, toilet seat, etc.) using a press mold uniquely
designed for the product. The press molds used for molded particleboard
products are designed very differently from the platen or continuous
presses used to manufacture conventional particleboard panels. Prior to
promulgation, we determined that MACT for particleboard press molds is
no emission reduction, and, therefore, there are no requirements in the
final PCWP rule for these press molds. However, molded particleboard
facilities can operate dry rotary dryers or green rotary dryers
identical to those operated by conventional particleboard plants.
Rotary dryers at molded particleboard manufacturing facilities were
included in the MACT determination for PCWP dry and green rotary
dryers. The final PCWP rule contains work practice requirements for dry
rotary dryers and control requirements for green rotary dryers. In
order to ensure that MACT is applied as intended for these dryers, we
are proposing to amend the definition of ``plywood and composite wood
products manufacturing facility'' to include molded particleboard
manufacturing. Note that only those molded particleboard manufacturers
that are major sources of HAP emissions are potentially affected by
this clarification to the definition of ``plywood and composite wood
products manufacturing facility.''
Several other applicability questions have been raised regarding
the definition of ``plywood and composite wood products manufacturing
facility.'' As promulgated, a ``plywood and composite wood products
manufacturing facility'' is ``a facility that manufactures plywood and/
or composite wood products by bonding wood material (fibers, particles,
strands, veneers, etc.) or agricultural fiber, generally with resin
under heat and pressure, to form a structural panel or engineered wood
product * * *.'' We have received several questions about the
applicability of the rule to products that are neither structural
panels nor engineered wood products. Although some products that may
not be considered structural panels or engineered wood products are
listed at the end of the definition of ``plywood and composite wood
products manufacturing facility'' (e.g., kiln-dried lumber), other
products that we intended to cover are not listed in this definition.
The phrase ``structural panel or engineered wood product'' was never
intended to be a basis of exclusion from the source category; instead,
it was intended to summarize the majority of products made at PCWP
manufacturing facilities. Certain products that typically would not be
considered either structural panels or engineered wood products were
included in the MACT floor analysis and are subject to the promulgated
rule. We propose to clarify our intent by amending the first sentence
of the definition of ``plywood and composite wood products
manufacturing facility'' to cover a wider variety of products.
Plywood. We also received questions regarding applicability of the
PCWP final rule to operations where veneer is glued (with heat and
pressure) to form a curved wood component or onto a curved wood
component rather than a flat panel. The promulgated definition of
``plywood'' is `` * * * a panel product consisting of layers of wood
veneers hot pressed together with resin. Plywood includes panel
products made by hot pressing (with resin) veneers to a substrate such
as particleboard, medium density fiberboard, or lumber.'' We did not
define ``panel product'' in the final rule; however, we intended for
the term to be interpreted broadly. We consider a product manufactured
by hot-pressing veneers together or onto a substrate with resin to be
plywood, regardless of the curvature of the end product. We propose to
amend the definition of ``plywood'' to clarify our intent. There are no
control requirements or work practice requirements for plywood pressing
operations in the final PCWP rule. Therefore, facilities manufacturing
products that meet the definition of ``plywood'' in the final rule (but
have no other operations subject to the control, work practice, or
operating requirements in the final PCWP rule) need only to submit an
initial notification stating that they have no equipment subject to the
rule (as discussed in the next section of this preamble).
Molded particleboard. To supplement our proposed addition of molded
particleboard manufacturing to the definition of ``plywood and
composite wood products manufacturing facility,'' we are also proposing
to add a definition of ``molded particleboard'' to subpart DDDD of 40
CFR part 63.
Engineered wood products. Following promulgation of the PCWP rule,
we received several applicability questions regarding engineered wood
products. To assist stakeholders in determining what products we
consider to be engineered wood products, we are proposing to add a
definition of ``engineered wood product'' to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR
part 63.
3. Affected Sources With No Process Units Subject to the Compliance
Options or Work Practice Requirements
Following promulgation, we received several questions regarding
applicability of general recordkeeping and reporting

[[Page 44017]]

requirements for affected sources with no equipment subject to specific
requirements in the final rule. To clarify our intent in the final
rule, we are proposing to add to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 a new
section 63.2252, entitled ``What are the requirements for process units
that have no control or work practice requirements?'' The proposed
section states that you are not required to comply with the compliance
options, work practice requirements, performance testing, monitoring,
SSM plans, and recordkeeping or reporting requirements of this subpart,
or any other requirements in subpart A of this part, except for the
initial notification requirements in Sec. 63.9(b), for process units
not subject to the compliance options or work practice requirements
specified in Sec. 63.2240. Thus, affected sources without process
units subject to the compliance options or work practice requirements
(for example, lumber kilns, glue-laminated beams, or wood I-joists)
would not be subject to the performance testing requirements,
monitoring requirements, SSM plan requirements, and recordkeeping or
reporting requirements of subpart DDDD, or any other requirements in
subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. The proposed amendment is appropriate
because no reports other than the initial notification would apply to
these process units. The SSM plan is not necessary or required for
process units not subject to specific requirements of the final rule
because Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A of this part requires an affected
source to develop an SSM plan for process units subject to and control
equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. The final PCWP
rule was not intended to require anything other than the initial
notification for process units not subject to the compliance options or
work practice requirements.
4. Incorporation by Reference of NCASI Test Methods
With today's action, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.14 by
revising paragraph (f) to incorporate by reference one test method
developed by the NCASI, pending review by EPA: Method ISS/FP-A105.01,
Impinger Source Sampling Method for Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and
Polar Compounds. The method is available from the NCASI, Methods
Manual, P.O. Box 133318, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3318 or at
http://www.ncasi.org. It is also available from the docket
for the proposed amendments (Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0048).
The NCASI Method ISS/FP-A105.01 was developed as an additional test
method for measuring total HAP that may be used for high-moisture
sources. The NCASI Method ISS/FP-A105.01 is not appropriate for
measurement of benzene. In today's proposed amendments, NCASI Method
ISS/FP-A105.01, which is a self-validating method, would be allowed,
pending our review, as an alternative to:
? EPA Method 320, Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and
Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR, for measuring methanol,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, phenol or total HAP;
? EPA Method 0011, Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone
Emissions from Stationary Sources, for measuring formaldehyde;
? EPA Method 316, Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde
Emissions from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool
Fiberglass Industries, for measuring formaldehyde;
? EPA Method 308, Procedure for Determination of Methanol
Emission from Stationary Sources, for measuring methanol;
? NCASI Method CI/WP-98.01, Chilled Impinger Method for Use
at Wood Products Mills to Measure Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol,
for measuring formaldehyde or methanol; and
? NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02, Impinger/Canister Source
Sampling Method for Selected HAPs at Wood Products Facilities, for
measuring methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, phenol or
total HAP.

B. Amendments to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 63

1. Addition of Emissions Estimation Procedures
Appendix B to subpart DDDD provides the methodology and criteria
for demonstrating that your affected source is part of the low-risk
subcategory of PCWP manufacturing facilities. As promulgated, appendix
B to subpart DDDD requires emissions testing of all PCWP process units
for up to 13 HAP. Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the process units
that must be tested for each HAP and the emissions test methods
specified in appendix B to subpart DDDD, as promulgated, for each HAP.

Table 2.--Emissions Test Methods Specified in Appendix B to Subpart
DDDD, as Promulgated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specified test
HAP Process units method(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde, acrolein, All process units... NCASI IM/CAN/WP-
formaldehyde, phenol. 99.02 or EPA Method
320 or ASTM D6348-
03.
Benzene..................... All process units... EPA Method 320 or
ASTM D6348-03.
Methylene diphenyl Presses that process EPA Method 320 or
diisocyanate (MDI). board containing Conditional Test
MDI resin. Method 031.
Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, Direct-fired process EPA Method 29.
chromium, lead, nickel, units.
manganese.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: EPA Method 320 is located in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. EPA
Method 29 is located in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The NCASI IM/CAN/
WP-99.02 and ASTM D6348-03 were incorporated by reference (see 40 CFR
63.14) and Conditional Test Method 031 is posted at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ctm.html.
Following promulgation, stakeholders commented that emissions
testing is not feasible or necessary for every process unit. The
stakeholders claimed that many PCWP process units are not configured
for emissions testing and that testing of every type of PCWP process
unit (especially those with insignificant emissions) is not necessary
to ensure an accurate assessment of risk. In addition, the stakeholders
stated that requiring emissions testing for acrolein and benzene from
all PCWP process units is not justified by the available data, which
show that emissions of acrolein and benzene are frequently not detected
in the exhausts from many types of PCWP process units. The stakeholders
also requested that HAP metals emissions testing be limited to those
direct-fired process units that fire fuels other than natural gas and
that fuel analysis be allowed as an alternative to HAP metals emissions
testing.
Selection of Process Units to be Included in Low-risk
Demonstration. EPA has determined that every process

[[Page 44018]]

unit with potentially significant emissions, including very small
emission sources, must be included in the low-risk demonstration
because the low-risk demonstration is based on the cumulative risk from
the process units within the PWCP affected source. Generally, this
means that EPA has included all process units with any detectable
emissions. However, we wanted to determine if costs could be lowered
without affecting the quality of the emission estimates. So, we
explored the feasibility of testing each type of PCWP process unit and
available emissions estimation methods. We must ensure an accurate
emissions determination for the affected source, given that the purpose
of the low-risk demonstration is to certify that a PCWP affected source
poses a risk to human health and the environment less than the low-risk
criteria specified in appendix B to subpart DDDD \2\ and is eligible to
become exempt from MACT compliance requirements. Therefore, for
purposes of the low-risk demonstration, we prefer to have emissions
test data over emissions estimates when emissions test data can be
reasonably obtained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ To be considered low risk, the PCWP affected source must
meet the following criteria: (1) The maximum off-site individual
lifetime cancer risk at a location where people live is less than
one in one million for carcinogenic chronic inhalation effects; (2)
every maximum off-site target-organ specific hazard index (TOSHI)
(or, alternatively, an appropriately site-specific set of hazard
indices based on similar or complementary mechanisms of action that
are reasonably likely to be additive at low dose or dose-response
data for your affected source's HAP mixture) at a location where
people live is less than or equal to 1.0 for noncarcinogenic chronic
inhalation effects; and (3) the maximum off-site acute hazard
quotients for acrolein and formaldehyde are less than or equal to
1.0 for noncarcinogenic acute inhalation effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe that it is feasible to perform emissions testing for the
following types of PCWP process units: Fiberboard mat dryers (heated
and cooling zones), green rotary dryers, hardboard ovens, press
predryers, pressurized refiners, primary tube dryers, secondary tube
dryers, reconstituted wood product board coolers, reconstituted wood
product presses, softwood veneer dryers (heated zones), rotary strand
dryers, conveyor strand dryers (all zones), dry rotary dryers, veneer
redryers (heated by conventional means), hardwood veneer dryers (heated
zones), rotary agricultural fiber dryers, agricultural fiber board
presses, paddle-type particle dryers, agricultural fiberboard mat
dryers, and atmospheric refiners. Therefore, emissions testing would
continue to be required for all of the above listed process units. Most
of the process units listed above have control or work practice
requirements under subpart DDDD.
We believe that emissions testing is not feasible for the following
types of process units: Fiberboard mat dryers (fugitive emissions),
softwood veneer dryer (cooling zones and fugitive emissions), hardwood
veneer dryers (cooling zones), radio-frequency veneer redryers,
softwood plywood presses, hardwood plywood presses, engineered wood
products presses, humidifiers, formers, blenders, sanders, saws, fiber
washers, chippers, log vats, lumber kilns, storage tanks, wastewater
operations, stand-alone digesters, veneer kilns, particleboard press
molds, and particleboard extruders. Some of these process units are
vented primarily for dust control and reclaim of process materials, and
their venting systems are not designed for flow measurement or
measurement of organic gases. Some of the process units are not vented
(i.e., are fugitive emissions sources) or are only partially vented.
The configuration of these process units, in terms of how and if they
vent to the atmosphere, varies significantly from plant to plant.
Often, the emission points from these process units (where defined
emission points exist) are not configured such that EPA Method 1 or EPA
Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) criteria for selection of
sampling ports and measurement of gas velocity could be met. Emissions
data are available from an extensive emissions testing program where
testable units in several of the process unit groups were identified.
These emissions data (along with other available data collected during
NESHAP development) have been used to develop emission factors. Almost
all of the test data were reviewed by industry experts. All the data,
except the lumber kiln data, were reviewed by EPA, were available for
the public to review at proposal, and were available for public review
during EPA's AP-42 review process. (See legacy docket A-98-44, items
titled ``Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 10.5, Plywood
Manufacturing,'' ``Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section
10.6.3,'' ``Medium Density Fiberboard Manufacturing,'' ``Emission
Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 10.6.2,'' ``Particleboard
Manufacturing,'' ``Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section
10.6.1,'' ``Waferboard/Oriented Strandboard Manufacturing,'' and
``Documentation of Emission Factor Development for the Plywood and
Composite Wood Products Manufacturing NESHAP.'') In addition, the
lumber kiln data are now available in ``Procedures for Determining
Emissions from Plywood and Composite Wood Products Process Units for
Low-Risk Demonstrations.'' Therefore, as discussed later in this
section, we are proposing to allow that emission factors be used to
estimate emissions from the hard-to-test process units for purposes of
the PCWP low-risk demonstrations. Other emissions estimation methods
(e.g., engineering estimates) are proposed to be allowed for hard-to-
test process units for which no emission factors are available.
Based on the available data, three types of process units
(miscellaneous coating operations, softwood veneer dryer fugitive
emissions, and log chipping operations) are hard to test but do not
emit any of the HAP listed in appendix B to subpart DDDD. Thus,
miscellaneous coating operations, softwood veneer dryer fugitive
emissions, and log chipping operations would not need to be considered
in the low-risk demonstration, under the proposed amendments.
There may be additional ancillary PCWP process units for which no
HAP data are available (e.g., log storage piles and material handling
operations). Such processes are likely to be hard to test. No
information is available to conclude that there are appendix B to 40
CFR part 63 HAP emissions from other PCWP processes not mentioned
elsewhere in today's proposed amendments. Nevertheless, in the event
that there may be an additional HAP emissions source within the PCWP
affected source that is not listed elsewhere in appendix B to subpart
DDDD, a category of ``other ancillary processes that emit appendix B
HAP emissions'' is proposed to be added to appendix B to subpart DDDD,
and engineering estimates for all of the appendix B HAP would be
allowed for such processes. We request comment (and emissions data, if
available) regarding any PCWP emissions sources not listed in appendix
B to subpart DDDD that are known to emit appendix B HAP emissions. It
is not our intent to require quantification of emissions for ancillary
processes that do not emit appendix B HAP. Our intent with the category
of ``other ancillary processes that emit appendix B HAP emissions'' is
to capture unique equipment (e.g., a one-of-a-kind dryer) that could
reasonably be expected to emit appendix B HAP, but is not otherwise
covered in the process unit definitions provided in subpart DDDD of 40
CFR part 63 and appendix B to subpart DDDD. Therefore, we request
comment on whether it would be appropriate to include a list of
``insignificant

[[Page 44019]]

activities'' for purposes of appendix B to subpart DDDD. We also
request comment on what activities should be included in such a list.
Commenters may want to refer to a list of proposed insignificant
activities in the docket which was submitted by AF&PA, titled
``Proposed Categorical Insignificant Sources.''
To incorporate emissions estimation procedures, our proposed
amendment to appendix B to subpart DDDD would add a table (table 2A to
appendix B to subpart DDDD) that states for each process unit whether
emissions testing is required or emissions estimation is allowed for
each of the appendix B HAP. If emissions estimates are allowed, then
the proposed table 2A to appendix B to subpart DDDD would specify the
emission factor (or other emissions estimation technique) to be used in
developing the emissions estimates. Related text is proposed to be
added to sections 5(a) and 5(k) of appendix B to subpart DDDD. Section
6(a) of appendix B to subpart DDDD is also being amended to clarify
that it applies when emissions estimation or testing is performed. We
are proposing to add definitions of process units not already defined
in subpart DDDD to section 15 of appendix B to subpart DDDD. In
addition, we are proposing to add text to section 8(a)(3) of appendix B
to subpart DDDD to specify that emissions estimate calculations must be
submitted with the low-risk demonstration.
Selection of Emissions Estimation Procedures. As mentioned
previously, emission factors could be used under the proposed
amendments to estimate emissions from most of the hard-to-test process
units. To streamline completion and review of the low-risk
demonstrations, our proposed amendment to appendix B to subpart DDDD
specifies emission factors that are to be used in low-risk
demonstrations. We are not proposing to allow facilities to choose
their own emission factors (from AP-42 or elsewhere) because we believe
we have the most extensive collection of PCWP HAP emissions data
available and because additional time would be required for EPA to
verify the emission factors selected for each process unit. The
emission factors proposed to be included in appendix B to subpart DDDD
are the maximum emission factors available for each type of process
unit (i.e., the emission factor resulting from the highest emissions
test). Use of the maximum emission factor builds conservatism into the
emissions estimates to help account for unit-to-unit variability and
ensures protection of human health. In addition, the maximum emission
factor is available for all process units for which we have sufficient
data. While we believe the maximum emission factor is the best
statistical approach as explained above, we request comment on using
other statistical approaches. Facilities approaching the limits of the
low-risk criteria may refine their analysis of HAP emitted by
reconfiguring their process unit, if possible, and conducting emissions
testing.
Estimation of emissions would be allowed for acetaldehyde,
acrolein, formaldehyde, phenol, and benzene. In addition, estimation of
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) emissions would be allowed for
process units processing material containing MDI resin. Except for
lumber kilns, estimation of HAP metals emissions is not necessary
because the hard-to-test process units are heated by means other than
direct firing (if heated at all). In some cases, a particular HAP
listed on appendix B to subpart DDD was not detected in any emissions
test run conducted for a process unit type. We are proposing that no
emissions estimate be developed for HAP that have not been detected
from a process unit group because the available emission factors are
based on values equal to one-half of the method detection limit (MDL)
and are of limited use. Engineering estimates are proposed in some
cases where all of the data are non-detect but the available data sets
are small, and it is reasonable to believe that a particular HAP could
be emitted. In some cases, no applicable emission factor is available
for certain HAP and process unit combinations where we expect the HAP
could be detected (e.g., phenol from oriented strandboard (OSB)
blenders and MDI from MDI blenders). We are proposing to accept
engineering estimates based on information available to the facility in
cases where no applicable emission factor is available for a HAP that
may reasonably be expected to be emitted from a certain type of process
unit.
Our data base of emission factors does not include emission factors
for lumber kilns. It is difficult to measure emissions from lumber
kilns due to kiln air flow design, fugitive emissions, and the lengthy
kiln batch cycle (e.g., 24 hours for softwood kilns, days for hardwood
kilns). Therefore, little emissions test data are available for use in
developing HAP emission factors for lumber kilns. Methods for
quantifying lumber kiln flow rates vary from test to test. Most of the
emissions test data that are available (generally total hydrocarbon
(THC) data) contain calculated flow rates or other assumptions that
bring the validity of the data into question. A few tests have been
conducted on both small- and full-scale lumber kilns to determine
emissions of HAP (generally formaldehyde and methanol). We reviewed
available information on lumber kiln emissions and selected the maximum
emission factors of HAP listed in appendix B to subpart DDDD from the
literature. Today, we are proposing these emission factors for purposes
of estimating lumber kiln emissions for the low-risk demonstration.
Engineering estimates of HAP metals emissions are proposed for direct-
fired lumber kilns. While emissions testing of full-scale lumber kilns
has proven to be very difficult, studies have shown that testing of
small-scale lumber kilns can be used to reasonably approximate
emissions from full-scale lumber kilns if representative lumber samples
are dried and the venting characteristics of the small-scale kiln mimic
those of the full-scale kiln. Several U.S. universities and private
laboratories operate small-scale kilns. To approximate emissions from
full-scale kilns, a representative sample of lumber is taken from the
full-scale kiln facility, packaged to prevent moisture loss, and
shipped to the location of the small-scale kiln where the full-scale
kiln's drying cycle (e.g., time and temperatures) is mirrored during
emissions testing. Small-scale kilns are designed for more accurate air
flow measurement and are less costly to test. In addition to proposing
emission factor estimates based on the available information, we
request comment on whether it would be appropriate to allow facilities
to commission emissions testing at a representative small-scale lumber
kiln for purposes of the low-risk demonstration. We also request
comment on any standard procedures for submitting lumber samples and
conducting small-scale kiln emissions testing that should be
incorporated into or referenced by appendix B to subpart DDDD. When
submitting comments on standard procedures, please refer to a document
in the docket entitled ``Considerations for a Small-scale Kiln Emission
Testing Program.''
Emission factors are not available for PCWP resin storage tanks and
PCWP wastewater/process water operations. For resin storage tanks, we
are proposing to specify in appendix B to subpart DDDD that facilities
may apply the maximum emissions estimates reported in our MACT survey
responses for each tank (depending on the tank contents). We are
proposing to specify that facilities generate engineering estimates of
appendix B HAP emissions

[[Page 44020]]

from wastewater/process water operations. Alternatively, we have
developed computer models for estimating emissions from storage tanks
(TANKS) and wastewater/process water operations (WATER9). Both models
are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/index.html. The
proposed amendments to appendix B to subpart DDDD allow facilities to
use these models to develop more refined estimates of emissions from
resin storage tanks and wastewater/process water operations. We also
request comment on other methods that could be used in appendix B to
subpart DDDD to quantify emissions from wastewater/process water
operations, such as the approach outlined in forms VII and VIII of
appendix C to 40 CFR part 63 and described further with respect to the
PCWP industry in the supporting information for today's proposed amendments.
Application of Emissions Estimation Procedures. To apply emission
factors, facilities would need the emission factor (in terms of pounds
of HAP per process unit throughput) supplied in appendix B to subpart
DDDD and their site-specific process unit throughput. None of the hard-
to-test process units are equipped with HAP control devices; therefore,
control efficiency is not a variable in the emission factor estimates
for low-risk demonstrations. Facilities may also use process unit
throughput or other parameters in their engineering estimates allowed
where emission factors were not available.
Process unit throughput could be based on process unit capacity or
actual throughput. Section 11 of appendix B to subpart DDDD requires
facilities to incorporate parameters that define the affected source as
part of the low-risk subcategory (including production rate) as
federally enforceable limits in their title V permits. Furthermore,
according to section 13(a) of appendix B to subpart DDDD, facilities
must certify with their ongoing title V certifications that the basis
for their low-risk demonstrations have not changed (including any
process changes that would increase HAP emissions, such as a production
rate increase). Given these requirements, we are proposing to allow
facilities to use the process unit throughput that they wish to
incorporate into their title V permit in their emissions estimates for
the low-risk demonstration. We decided not to mandate use of process
unit capacity for the emissions estimations in order to give facilities
the flexibility to choose a federally enforceable permit limit on their
production rate should they wish to minimize emissions by limiting
production.
Some PCWP process units have multiple emissions points of varying
height. For purposes of the low-risk demonstration, it is necessary to
have an emission rate and emissions release parameters (e.g., stack
height) associated with each emission point. Thus, we are proposing
that emissions estimates developed for process units with multiple
emission points be divided evenly across the emission points. For
example, emissions estimated for a softwood plywood press with four
vents would be divided by four, with one-fourth of the estimated
emissions being assigned to each press vent. We are also proposing
minor changes to the wording throughout appendix B to subpart DDDD to
clarify that individual emission points are to be considered separately.
Acrolein and Benzene Testing Requirements. As promulgated, appendix
B to subpart DDDD allows a process unit to be excluded from the testing
requirements for benzene and acrolein for purposes of the low-risk
demonstration when EPA determines it will not emit detectable amounts
of benzene or acrolein, respectively (see footnote 1 to table 2 to
appendix B to subpart DDDD, as promulgated). We evaluated the available
acrolein and benzene data for those process units that must be tested
for purposes of the low-risk demonstration (i.e., process units for
which emissions estimation is not allowed). The results of our review
are included in proposed table 2a to appendix B to subpart DDDD.
Because our review is complete and the results available, we are
proposing to delete footnote 1 to table 2 to appendix B to subpart DDDD.
Determining MDI Emissions. At promulgation, appendix B to subpart
DDDD specified that MDI emissions testing need only be conducted for
presses processing board containing MDI resin. To date, the only MDI
emissions data available is for presses processing board formed using
MDI resin. However, upon further consideration of the potential for MDI
emissions, we note that there may be other, less common process units
processing materials containing MDI resin. Table 2A, proposed to be
added to appendix B to subpart DDDD, specifies that emissions testing
must be performed for primary and secondary tube dryers, reconstituted
wood products presses and board coolers, and agricultural fiber presses
if material containing MDI resin is processed. We are proposing to
require engineering estimates of MDI emissions for OSB, particleboard,
and medium density fiberboard (MDF) blending and forming operations,
finishing sanders and saws, and I-joist curing chambers that process
material containing MDI resin. We are also proposing to require
estimates of MDI emissions from MDI resin storage tanks.
2. Emission Testing Requirements
Stakeholders noted the resource burden associated with the
emissions testing requirements in appendix B to subpart DDDD and
suggested several ways the burden may be reduced without sacrificing
details necessary to ensure that the low-risk demonstration is health-
protective. As a result of some of these suggestions, and in addition
to our proposal to allow emissions estimation procedures for several
process units (discussed previously in this preamble), we are proposing
to amend some aspects of the emissions testing requirements in appendix
B to subpart DDDD.
First, stakeholders suggested that only one of multiple identical
dryers at a facility would need to be tested (e.g., only one of three
identical veneer dryers) and that the emissions data from the dryer
tested could be applied to the other identical dryers. This change
would decrease the number of emissions tests required without
significantly affecting the quality of the emissions determination.
After reviewing emissions data gathered at nearly the same time from
multiple similar PCWP process units at a plant site, we agree that this
approach would be sufficient for purposes of the PCWP low-risk
demonstration. We are proposing to amend appendix B to subpart DDDD to
allow application of test results from one process unit to other
similar process units at the same plant site, provided that certain
conditions are met. Facilities would be required to explain how the
process units are similar in terms of design, function, heating method,
raw materials processed, residence time, change in material moisture
content, operating temperature, resin type processed, and any other
parameters that may affect emissions. To account for minor variations
in process parameters, facilities would be required to explain and test
the process unit that would be expected to have the greatest emissions
(e.g., the unit with a slightly (5 to 10 percent) higher temperature
set point, dryer processing furnish with slightly higher inlet moisture
content, press processing thicker panels, process unit with the greater
throughput, etc.). Also, if the process units have different throughput
rates, then facilities must convert the emissions test results to terms
of pounds of HAP per unit

[[Page 44021]]

throughput prior to applying the emissions test data to other similar
process units.
Second, stakeholders requested that we allow HAP data collected
from previous emissions tests to be used for purposes of the low-risk
demonstration. Allowing use of previous emissions test results would
decrease the number of emissions tests required without significantly
affecting the quality of the emissions determination. Thus, we are
proposing to amend appendix B to subpart DDDD to allow use of previous
emissions test results, provided that certain conditions are met. The
emissions tests must have been conducted using the test methods and
procedures specified in appendix B to subpart DDDD. Previous emissions
test results obtained using the former NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01 are
acceptable. Also, the process units for which previous emissions test
data are used currently must be operated in the same manner (e.g., with
the same raw materials, same operating temperature, etc.) as during the
previous emissions tests, and the process units may not have been
modified such that emissions would be expected to differ
(notwithstanding normal test-to-test variability) from the previous
emissions tests.
Third, stakeholders requested that NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02 be
listed in appendix B to subpart DDDD for measurement of benzene as well
as for measurement of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and phenol.
Following proposal of the PCWP rule, commenters requested that we
replace references to NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01 in subpart DDDD of
40 CFR part 63 (for measurement of acetaldehyde, acrolein,
formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde) with the revised
version of the same method (NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02). We reviewed
NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02 for applicability with respect to the six
HAP named in subpart DDDD and concluded that NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-
99.02 was appropriate for measurement of these six HAP. Prior to
promulgation, we did not review NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02 with
respect to benzene, and, therefore, we did not list it in appendix B to
subpart DDDD as an applicable method for measurement of benzene. Upon
further review of the method, we agree that it is appropriate for
measurement of benzene, and we are proposing to amend appendix B to
subpart DDDD to allow use of NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02 for benzene
measurement. Stakeholders also requested that EPA Method 18 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A) be included in appendix B to subpart DDDD for
benzene measurement, and they expressed concern about using Fourier
Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy for benzene. We agree that EPA
Method 18 is appropriate for measurement of benzene. We are proposing
to add Method 18 to appendix B to subpart DDDD. We request comment on
the applicability of FTIR for measurement of benzene and the other HAP
listed in appendix B to subpart DDDD. In addition, as stated
previously, we are proposing to incorporate by reference NCASI Method
ISS/FP-A105.01 (following EPA approval of the method) into appendix B
to subpart DDDD to provide another option for measurement of
acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and phenol.
Fourth, stakeholders recommended changes to appendix B to subpart
DDDD regarding treatment of nondetect data gathered using EPA Method 29
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A). As promulgated, appendix B to subpart
DDDD allows Method 29 nondetect measurements to be treated as zero if
the samples are analyzed using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS).
Otherwise, nondetect data for individual HAP must be treated as one-
half of the method detection limit. Stakeholders pointed out that
laboratory methods other than AAS can achieve method detection limits
equal to or lower than those obtained with AAS and requested that zero
be assigned to non-detect measurements analyzed by these other
laboratory methods. Thus, we are proposing to amend appendix B to
subpart DDDD to state that zero may be used for Method 29 non-detect
measurements if the samples are analyzed using AAS or another
laboratory method specified in Method 29 with detection limits lower
than or equal to the AAS detection limits.
Lastly, stakeholders stated that HAP metals emissions testing is
not necessary for direct-fired process units using only natural gas.
The vast majority of PCWP direct-fired process units are fired with
either wood or natural gas. A small number of PCWP direct-fired process
units are fired with other fuels. Natural gas, or less commonly,
propane, is often used as a backup or auxiliary fuel. Although we
believe it is possible that HAP metals emissions could originate from
combustion in direct wood-fired process units, we agree that measurable
emissions of HAP metals would not be expected from natural gas-fired
process units. We also would not expect measurable HAP metals emissions
from process units direct-fired with propane. Therefore, we are
proposing to amend appendix B to subpart DDDD to exclude process units
direct-fired with only natural gas or propane from the HAP metals
testing requirements. We would continue to require HAP metals testing
for process units direct-fired using wood, other fuels, or a
combination of natural gas (or propane) and wood or other fuels. For
clarity, we are also proposing to add definitions of ``natural gas''
and ``propane'' to appendix B to subpart DDDD.
Stakeholders further suggested that we allow a fuel analysis
approach similar to that in the Boilers/Process Heaters final rule (40
CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD) as an alternative to HAP metals testing.
The fuel analysis method described in the Boilers/Process Heaters final
rule allows affected sources to demonstrate compliance with the total
selected metals (TSM) emissions limit using fuel analysis if the 90th
percentile confidence level of metals concentration in the fuel is less
than the emissions limit (see 69 FR 55218, September 13, 2004). The
specific requirements for conducting a fuel analysis are presented in
sections 63.7521 and 63.7530(d)(1), (2), and (4) of the Boilers/Process
Heaters final rule. We request comment on the appropriateness of
providing a fuel analysis alternative to HAP metals testing for direct-
fired process units that use fuels other than natural gas and propane.
3. Calculation of Average Stack Height
The look-up table analysis described in appendix B to subpart DDDD
relies on calculation of average stack height. There are some near-
ground-level emission points at PCWP facilities. The near-ground-level
emission points generally contain small amounts of HAP as compared to
higher-level emission points. Stakeholders have expressed concern that
inclusion of numerous near-ground-level emission points in the average
stack height calculation would unreasonably lower the average stack
height to be used in the look-up tables. As a result, we are proposing
to amend appendix B to subpart DDDD to incorporate weighted-average
stack height calculations for use in the carcinogen and non-carcinogen
look-up tables. We are proposing to add two equations to section 6(a)
of appendix B to subpart DDDD. The weighted-average stack heights would
be based on the toxicity-weighted carcinogen emission rate (TWCER) and
toxicity-weighted non-carcinogen emission rate (TWNER). Separate
weighted-average stack heights, the carcinogen weighted-

[[Page 44022]]

average stack height (WAHC) and non-carcinogen weighted-average stack
height (WAHN), would be developed for use in the carcinogen and non-
carcinogen look-up tables, respectively. The weighted-average stack
height would be minimally affected by emission points with toxicity-
weighted emission rates that are low relative to the total toxicity-
weighted emission rate at the source. The weighted-average stack height
will usually be higher than the stack height calculated using a
straight average (as promulgated), except in unlikely cases where the
higher-emitting sources are closer to the ground than the lower-
emitting sources. If the higher-emitting sources are closer to the
ground, then the weighted-average stack height will be lower (i.e.,
more conservative) than a straight average (as promulgated). We believe
that use of a weighted-average stack height calculation will result in
a more accurate picture of the potential risk from an affected source
than a straight average.
4. Permit and Timing Issues
Date for New Sources To Submit Low-risk Demonstrations. Section
10(c) of appendix B to subpart DDDD requires new or reconstructed
affected sources to conduct emissions tests upon initial startup and to
use the results of these emissions tests to complete and submit the
low-risk demonstration within 180 days following the initial startup
date. While this schedule is appropriate for new or reconstructed
sources starting up after the effective date, it is not feasible for
new or reconstructed sources starting up prior to the effective date
because these sources could not have known what the testing
requirements were for the low-risk demonstration. Therefore, we are
proposing to amend section 10(c) to state that new or reconstructed
sources must conduct emissions tests by the effective date or upon
initial startup, whichever is later. We are also proposing to amend
section 10(c) to state that new or reconstructed sources must submit
their low-risk demonstration within 180 days following the effective
date or initial startup date, whichever is later.
Date for Existing Sources To Submit Low-risk Demonstrations.
Section 10(a) of appendix B to subpart DDDD requires existing sources
to complete and submit their low-risk demonstrations no later than July
31, 2006. We are proposing to change the submittal date to April 1, 2007.
We understand that proposing to extend the deadline for sources to
submit low-risk demonstrations may have implications for other
deadlines under the PCWP rule. For example, in cases where we
disapprove a source's timely-submitted demonstration, a source may have
little remaining time to install any controls needed to comply with
MACT. Therefore, we seek comment on whether to extend the MACT
compliance date by some period of time such as six months to one year
for sources whose low-risk demonstrations we disapprove or for all PCWP
sources.
Timing of Title V Permit Revisions. To become part of the low-risk
subcategory, section 11 of appendix B to subpart DDDD requires
facilities to obtain: (1) EPA approval of their low-risk
demonstrations, and (2) title V permit revisions including terms and
conditions reflecting the parameters used in their approved
demonstrations, according to the schedules in their applicable 40 CFR
part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 title V permit programs. Unless and until EPA
finds that these criteria are met, a facility is subject to the
applicable compliance options, operating requirements, and work
practice requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. Thus, low-risk
facilities wishing to avoid MACT applicability must meet the criteria
for becoming part of the low-risk subcategory before the MACT
compliance date. There has been some confusion and concern regarding
the timing of the required title V permit revisions. Stakeholders
expressed concern that some permitting authorities may be unable to
approve title V permit revisions before the MACT compliance date.
According to appendix B to subpart DDDD, as promulgated, low-risk
demonstrations for existing sources are due to EPA 14 months prior to
the MACT compliance date. Facilities would apply for permit revisions
following EPA approval of their low-risk demonstration, leaving a year
or less for permitting authorities to approve the permit revision.
In the final appendix B to subpart DDDD (section 11(b)), we
included the statement ``You must submit an application for a
significant permit modification to reopen your title V permit to
incorporate such terms and conditions according to the procedures and
schedules of 40 CFR part 71 or the EPA-approved program in effect under
40 CFR part 70, as applicable.'' With this language, we intended to
consider an application for permit revision submitted prior to the MACT
compliance date sufficient for meeting the requirement applicable to
the source to initiate action to revise the title V permit to
incorporate the parameters that rendered the facility part of the low-
risk subcategory. To clarify that it is sufficient to have submitted an
application for a permit revision, we are proposing to amend section
11(b) of appendix B to subpart DDDD to state that the parameters that
define your affected source as part of the low-risk subcategory must be
submitted for incorporation as federally enforceable terms and
conditions into your title V permit. We are also retaining the sentence
quoted above from section 11(b) of appendix B to subpart DDDD.
5. Using Preliminary Data in the Low-Risk Demonstration
Industry stakeholders requested that EPA allow facilities to submit
low-risk demonstrations based on proposed physical changes to emission
points. A facility would not be required to install controls, make
stack modifications, or make other modifications prior to approval of
the low-risk demonstration. All changes would have to be completed for
the facility to become part of the low-risk subcategory. In addition,
we would require facilities to verify that emissions do not exceed the
emission factor calculations presented in the low-risk demonstration by
conducting emissions tests. The facility would then submit
documentation to EPA that the physical changes and emissions tests were
completed. Allowing facilities to complete physical changes after
getting approval of the low-risk demonstration would not diminish the
accuracy of the risk assessment. However, it will provide facilities
some assurance that their low-risk demonstration will be approved
before they embark on costly equipment reconfiguration, and it will
allow more time to make the changes. We request comment on this approach.
The industry stakeholders also requested that for emission points
that require emissions testing, facilities have the option of using
emission factors in their low-risk demonstrations, pending subsequent
verification. The facility could choose to submit their low-risk
demonstration earlier than required and receive feedback on its
approvability from EPA before conducting emissions tests. The facility
would then verify the results of the low-risk demonstration by
performing emissions tests and submitting them to EPA for review and
approval no later than the date low-risk submittals are due and prior
to becoming part of the low-risk subcategory. Allowing the use of
emission factors in the low-risk demonstrations would allow facilities
the opportunity to use the alternatives to emissions testing included
in today's proposed amendments; save facilities the cost of emissions
testing should their risk assessment not be approved by

[[Page 44023]]

EPA; and allow facilities more time to complete emissions testing. If
the emissions tests do not support the low-risk demonstration, the
facility cannot become part of the low-risk subcategory. We request
comment on this approach.

C. Other Amendments to the Rule

In addition to the proposed changes to address issues raised by
stakeholders, we are proposing other changes to clarify requirements
and correct errors.
1. Unscheduled Startups and Shutdowns
Section 63.2250(a) of subpart DDDD, as promulgated, stated that ``*
* * The compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements do not apply during times when the process unit(s) subject
to the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements are not operating, or during scheduled startup and
shutdown periods, and during malfunctions. These startup and shutdown
periods must not exceed the minimum amount of time necessary for these
events.'' This language has resulted in confusion about applicability
of the rule requirements during unscheduled startup and shutdown
periods. Unscheduled startups and shutdowns resulting from malfunction
events were always intended to be allowed as part of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSM plan) (see discussions in 2.8.3.2
and 2.8.3.5 of the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Plywood and Composite Wood Products Manufacturing--
Background Information for Final Standards''). With this proposed
amendment, we are clarifying our intent that the rule requirements do
not apply during unscheduled startups and shutdowns covered under the
SSM plan. We are proposing to amend the language in Sec. 63.2250(a)
accordingly.
2. Numbering in Appendix A to Subpart DDDD
As promulgated, section 10 of appendix A to subpart DDDD (the
tracer gas method for measuring capture efficiency) contained two
sections numbered 10.4. We are proposing to correct this error by
renumbering the second section 10.5.
3. Website Address for ``Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library''
As promulgated, section 7(a) of appendix B to subpart DDDD stated
that the ``Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library'' was available
from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw However, the document is located at a
different Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html.
We are proposing to correct the Web site address in section 7(a) of
appendix B to subpart DDDD.
4. Lookup Table Units of Measure
As promulgated, tables 3 and 4 to appendix B of subpart DDDD (the
lookup tables for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects,
respectively) contained footnotes stating the units of measure to which
the values in the lookup tables were normalized. These footnotes have
been a source of confusion and are not needed, given that the units are
included in the table titles. Therefore, we are proposing to remove the
footnotes relating to units of measure from tables 3 and 4 of appendix
B to subpart DDDD.
5. Lookup Table Reference to ``Property Boundary''
As promulgated, table 3 to appendix B to subpart DDDD referred to
the ``distance to nearest residence.'' However, like table 4 to
appendix B to subpart DDDD, table 3 should refer to the ``distance to
property boundary.'' We are proposing to correct this error so that
table 3 to appendix B to subpart DDDD also refers to ``distance to
property boundary.''
6. Numbering in Section 63.2269(c)
Section 63.2269(c), as promulgated, stated that for wood moisture
monitoring, ``you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (2),
(4) and (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.''
However, section 63.2269(a) has only three paragraphs. We are proposing
to correct this error by amending section 63.2269(c) so that the
paragraphs in section 63.2269(a) are referenced correctly and to
include reference to section 63.2269(c)(5).

V. Additional Clarifications

A. Integrated Drying Systems Where Combustion Units That Heat the
Dryers Are Used as Control Devices

There has been some confusion regarding applicability of the final
PCWP and Boilers/Process Heaters rules to integrated drying systems
where a combustion unit provides indirect heat to the dryers and also
serves as the control device for the dryers. In these systems, exhaust
from a large combustion unit is used to indirectly heat ambient air or
generate steam (to be used as heat for the dryers) and to provide
indirect heat for other operations (e.g., to generate steam or heat hot
oil for the press). After these indirect heat exchanges, the exhaust
from the combustion unit is emitted to the atmosphere through a
particulate control device. The dryer exhaust is routed to the
combustion unit for emissions control.
The final Boilers/Process Heaters rule states that any boiler or
process heater specifically listed as an affected source in another
standard under 40 CFR part 63 is not subject to the Boilers/Process
Heaters rule (see section 63.7491(l)). The Boilers/Process Heaters rule
does not exclude boilers and process heaters that are used as control
devices unless they are specifically considered part of another
NESHAP's definition of affected source. (See 69 FR 55230, September 13,
2004.) We received questions regarding whether combustion units in
integrated drying systems (described previously in this section) are
part of the PCWP affected source. The definition of ``affected source''
in the PCWP final rule does not mention combustion units used as
control devices. As stated previously, there are combustion units that
can be part of the PCWP affected source and also be Boilers/Process
Heaters affected sources. Combustion units in integrated drying systems
(as described in this section) are part of the Boilers/Process Heaters
affected source because they meet the definition of ``process heater''
in the Boilers/Process Heaters final rule in that they ``* * * transfer
heat indirectly to a process material (liquid, gas, or solid) or to a
heat transfer material for use in a process unit * * *''

B. Applicability of the PCWP Rule to Hot Pressing of Veneers Onto a
Substrate

We received several questions regarding applicability of the PCWP
final rule to operations where hardwood or softwood veneer is hot-
pressed with resin onto a substrate (such as lumber, particleboard,
MDF, etc.) to form a panel product. Such operations may be located at
facilities that are major sources because they produce other products
(e.g., furniture). The definition of ``plywood'' in the final PCWP rule
is as follows: ``Plywood means a panel product consisting of layers of
wood veneers hot pressed together with resin. Plywood includes panel
products made by hot pressing (with resin) veneers to a substrate such
as particleboard, medium density fiberboard, or lumber.'' Thus, the
pressing operation described above is considered to be plywood
manufacturing according to the definition of ``plywood.'' However,
there are no control requirements or work practice requirements for
plywood pressing operations in the final PCWP rule. Thus, facilities
hot pressing products that meet the definition of plywood in the final
rule (but have no

[[Page 44024]]

other operations subject to the control, work practice, or operating
requirements in the final PCWP rule) need only to submit an initial
notification stating that they have no equipment subject to the rule
(as discussed earlier in this preamble).

C. Applicability of the PCWP Rule to Lumber Kilns Drying Utility Poles

As discussed in the preamble to the final PCWP rule, (69 FR 45948
and 45962) the PCWP affected source includes lumber kilns located at
any type of facility, regardless of whether the facility manufactures
PCWP. We determined that MACT for lumber kilns is no emission
reduction. Therefore, the only requirements in the PCWP final rule for
major source facilities with no PCWP process units other than lumber
kilns is to submit an initial notification.
Following promulgation of the PCWP rule, we received questions
regarding applicability of subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to lumber
kilns used to dry utility poles. We believe that there may be a number
of facilities that dry utility poles in lumber kilns, that the
operations are similar to other lumber kiln operations, and that they
are part of the PCWP affected source. However, because drying of
utility poles in lumber kilns was not considered prior to promulgation
of the PCWP rule, we request comment and data to support a
determination of whether the PCWP rule should include drying of utility
poles in lumber kilns.
Specifically, we request comment on the physical and operational
similarities and differences in lumber kilns used to dry sawn lumber
and utility poles in terms of kiln design, wood moisture content,
drying temperatures, and emissions characteristics. We also request
comment on whether the final PCWP rule should be amended to include a
definition of ``lumber,'' to be used with the definition of ``lumber
kiln'' in the final rule, and if so, suggestions for a definition of
``lumber.'' For example, one broad definition of lumber could be:
``Lumber'' means green (undried) timber sawed or split into planks or
boards, green timber cut or sanded into wood components, and green
timber processed for use as utility poles).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``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 entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that today's proposed amendments are a ``significant
regulatory action'' because they raise novel legal or policy issues. As
such, the proposed amendments were submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in the public record (see ADDRESSES
section of this preamble).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
We are not proposing any new paperwork (e.g., monitoring, reporting,
recordkeeping) as part of today's notice. With this action we are
seeking additional comments on some of the provisions finalized in the
July 2004 Federal Register Notice (69 FR 45943). However, OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0552, EPA ICR number 1984.02. A copy of the OMB
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; EPA (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare 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 not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business having no more than 500 to 750 employees, depending on the
business' NAICS code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and that is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that the proposed amendments
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory

[[Page 44025]]

burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small
entities subject to the rule. Today's proposed amendments significantly
reduce the number of emissions tests (and costs associated with these
tests) required for facilities to demonstrate that they are part of the
low-risk subcategory. We continue to be interested in the potential
impacts of the proposed amendments on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed,
under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that today's proposed amendments do not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. Although the final rule had annualized
costs estimated to range from $74 to $140 million (depending on the
number of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the low-
risk subcategory), the proposed amendments do not add new requirements
that would increase this cost. Thus, today's proposed amendments are
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they contain
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed amendments are not subject to
section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (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'' are 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 regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless it
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
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 EPA'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 its Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements
of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's proposed amendments do not have federalism implications.
They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected
facilities are owned or operated by State governments, and the
requirements of the proposed amendments will not supersede State
regulations that are more stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to today's proposed amendments.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, 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'' are 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
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
Today's proposed amendments do not have tribal implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
affected facilities are owned or operated by Indian tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's proposed amendments.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a

[[Page 44026]]

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA 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 EPA.
Today's proposed amendments are not subject to the Executive Order
because EPA does not believe that the environmental health or safety
risks associated with the emissions addressed by the proposed
amendments present a disproportionate risk to children. The noncancer
human health toxicity values we used in our analysis at promulgation
(e.g., reference concentrations) are protective of sensitive
subpopulations, including children. In addition, for purposes of this
rulemaking, EPA has not determined that any of the pollutants in
question has the potential for a disproportionate impact on predicted
cancer risks due to early-life exposure.

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

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that
agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a
Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as
``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211
defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any action by an agency
(normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is
expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation,
including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking,
and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order,
and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action.'' Today's proposed amendments are not a
``significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, we have concluded that today's proposed amendments are
not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with explanations when an agency
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
These amendments involve a technical standard. EPA cites the
following standard in this rulemaking: National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), draft method ISS/FP-A105.01 (2/05),
``Impinger Source Sampling Method for Aldehydes, Ketones, And Polar
Compounds.''
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to this method. One voluntary
consensus standard was found that is potentially applicable to the
NCASI method. This standard is not acceptable as an alternative to the
NCASI method, for the reasons stated below.
The German standard VDI 3862 (12/00), ``Gaseous Emission
Measurement-Measurement of Aliphatic and Aromatic Aldehydes and Ketones
by 2,4-Dinitrophenyhydrazine (DNPH) Impinger Method,'' is a good
impinger method for the sampling and analysis of aldehydes and ketones
that includes the use of an external standard, field and analytical
blanks, and repeatability tests. However, the VDI method is missing
some key quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures that are
included in the NCASI method. Specifically, VDI 3862 (12/00) is missing
the use of internal standards, matrix spikes, and surrogate standards
in the analytical step, as well as a duplicate sample run requirement,
and sampling train QA/QC samples such as field, run, and sampling train
spikes. Therefore, this VDI method, as written, is not acceptable as an
alternative to the draft NCASI method for the purposes of this rule
amendment.
Table 4 to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and table 2B to appendix
B to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 in this amendment list the testing
method included in the regulation. Under Sec. Sec. 63.7(f) and 63.8(f)
of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for
permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 18, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) NCASI Method ISS/FP-A105.01, Impinger Source Sampling Method
for Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar Compounds, 2005, NCASI,
Research Triangle Park, NC, IBR proposed to be approved for table 4 to
subpart DDDD of this part and appendix B to subpart DDDD of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart DDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products

3. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 63.2232 to read as follows:

Sec. 63.2232 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
(b) The affected source is the collection of dryers, refiners,
blenders, formers, presses, board coolers, and other process units
associated with the manufacturing of plywood and composite wood
products. The affected source includes, but is not limited to, green
end operations, refining, drying

[[Page 44027]]

operations (including any combustion unit exhaust stream routinely used
to direct fire process unit(s)), resin preparation, blending and
forming operations, pressing and board cooling operations, and
miscellaneous finishing operations (such as sanding, sawing, patching,
edge sealing, and other finishing operations not subject to other
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)). The
affected source also includes onsite storage and preparation of raw
materials used in the manufacture of plywood and/or composite wood
products, such as resins; onsite wastewater treatment operations
specifically associated with plywood and composite wood products
manufacturing; and miscellaneous coating operations (Sec. 63.2292).
The affected source includes lumber kilns at PCWP manufacturing
facilities and at any other kind of facility.
* * * * *
4. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 63.2250 to read as follows:

Sec. 63.2250 What are the general requirements?

(a) You must be in compliance with the compliance options,
operating requirements, and the work practice requirements in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of process unit or control
device startup, shutdown, and malfunction; prior to process unit
initial startup; and during the routine control device maintenance
exemption specified in Sec. 63.2251. The compliance options, operating
requirements, and work practice requirements do not apply during times
when the process unit(s) subject to the compliance options, operating
requirements, and work practice requirements are not operating, or
during scheduled startup and shutdown periods, and during malfunctions,
including unscheduled startups and shutdowns resulting from
malfunctions. Startup and shutdown periods must not exceed the minimum
amount of time necessary for these events.
* * * * *
5. Add section 63.2252 to read as follows:

Sec. 63.2252 What are the requirements for process units that have no
control or work practice requirements?

For process units not subject to the compliance options or work
practice requirements specified in Sec. 63.2240 (including, but not
limited to, lumber kilns), you are not required to comply with the
compliance options, work practice requirements, performance testing,
monitoring, SSM plans, and recordkeeping or reporting requirements of
this subpart, or any other requirements in subpart A of this part,
except for the initial notification requirements in Sec. 63.9(b).
6. Revise paragraph (d)(1) of Sec. 63.2262 to read as follows:

Sec. 63.2262 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating requirements?

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Sampling sites must be located at the inlet (if emission
reduction testing or documentation of inlet methanol or formaldehyde
concentration is required) and outlet of the control device (defined in
Sec. 63.2292) and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. For control
sequences with wet control devices (defined in Sec. 63.2292) followed
by control devices (defined in Sec. 63.2292), sampling sites may be
located at the inlet and outlet of the control sequence and prior to
any releases to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
7. Revise paragraph (c) introductory text of Sec. 63.2269 to read
as follows:

Sec. 63.2269 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
(c) Wood moisture monitoring. For each furnish or veneer moisture
meter, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)
and paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 63.2292, revise the definitions for ``affected
source,'' ``plywood,'' ``plywood and composite wood products
manufacturing facility,'' and ``tube dryer'' and add definitions for
``direct-fired process unit,'' ``engineered wood product,'' and
``molded particleboard'' to read as follows:

Sec. 63.2292 What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
Affected source means the collection of dryers, refiners, blenders,
formers, presses, board coolers, and other process units associated
with the manufacturing of plywood and composite wood products. The
affected source includes, but is not limited to, green end operations,
refining, drying operations (including any combustion unit exhaust
stream routinely used to direct fire process unit(s)), resin
preparation, blending and forming operations, pressing and board
cooling operations, and miscellaneous finishing operations (such as
sanding, sawing, patching, edge sealing, and other finishing operations
not subject to other NESHAP). The affected source also includes onsite
storage of raw materials used in the manufacture of plywood and/or
composite wood products, such as resins; onsite wastewater treatment
operations specifically associated with plywood and composite wood
products manufacturing; and miscellaneous coating operations (defined
elsewhere in this section). The affected source includes lumber kilns
at PCWP manufacturing facilities and at any other kind of facility.
* * * * *
Direct-fired process unit means a process unit that is heated by
the passing of combustion exhaust directly through the process unit
such that the process material is contacted by the combustion exhaust.
* * * * *
Engineered wood product means a product made with lumber, veneers,
strands of wood, or from other small wood elements that are bound
together with resin (including polyvinyl acetate (PVA) resin or hot
melt glue). Engineered wood products are generally designed for use in
the same applications as sawn lumber. Engineered wood products include,
but are not limited to, laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer
lumber, wood I-joists, and glue-laminated beams.
* * * * *
Molded particleboard means a shaped composite product (other than a
composite panel) composed primarily of cellulosic materials (usually
wood or agricultural fiber) generally in the form of discrete pieces or
particles, as distinguished from fibers, which are pressed together
with resin.
* * * * *
Plywood means a panel product consisting of layers of wood veneers
hot pressed together with resin. Plywood includes panel products made
by hot pressing (with resin) veneers to a substrate such as
particleboard, medium density fiberboard, or lumber. Plywood products
may be flat or curved.
Plywood and composite wood products (PCWP) manufacturing facility
means a facility that manufactures plywood and/or composite wood
products by bonding wood material (fibers, particles, strands, veneers,
etc.) or agricultural fiber, generally with resin under heat and
pressure, to form a panel, engineered wood product, or other product
defined in Sec. 63.2292. Plywood and composite wood products
manufacturing facilities also include facilities that manufacture dry
veneer and lumber kilns located at any facility. Plywood and composite
wood products

[[Page 44028]]

include, but are not limited to, plywood, veneer, particleboard, molded
particleboard, oriented strandboard, hardboard, fiberboard, medium
density fiberboard, laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber,
wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and glue-laminated beams.
* * * * *
Tube dryer means a single-stage or multi-stage dryer operated by
applying heat to reduce the moisture of wood fibers or particles as
they are conveyed (usually pneumatically) through the dryer. Resin may
or may not be applied to the wood material before it enters the tube
dryer. A tube dryer is a process unit.
* * * * *
9. Revise Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 to read as follows:

Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . . Using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each process unit subject Select sampling Method 1 or 1A of 40
to a compliance option in port's location and CFR part 60,
table 1A or 1B to this the number of appendix A (as
subpart or used in traverse ports. appropriate).
calculation of an emissions
average under Sec.
63.2240(c).
2. Each process unit subject Determine velocity Method 2 in addition
to a compliance option in and volumetric flow to Method 2A, 2C,
table 1A or 1B to this rate. 2D, 2F, or 2G in
subpart or used in appendix A to 40
calculation of an emissions CFR part 60 (as
average under Sec. appropriate).
63.2240(c).
3. Each process unit subject Conduct gas Method 3, 3A, or 3B
to a compliance option in molecular weight in appendix A to 40
table 1A or 1B to this analysis. CFR part 60 (as
subpart or used in appropriate).
calculation of an emissions
average under Sec.
63.2240(c).
4. Each process unit subject Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix
to a compliance option in content of the A to 40 CFR part
table 1A or 1B to this stack gas. 60; OR Method 320
subpart or used in in appendix A to 40
calculation of an emissions CFR part 63; OR
average under Sec. ASTM D6348-03 (IBR,
63.2240(c). option in table see
Sec. 63.14(b))
5. Each process unit subject Measure emissions of Method 25A in
to a compliance option in total HAP as THC. appendix A to 40
table 1B to this subpart CFR part 60. You
for which you choose to may measure
demonstrate compliance emissions of
using a total HAP as THC methane using EPA
compliance option. Method 18 in
appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 and
subtract the
methane emissions
from the emissions
of total HAP as
THC.
6. Each process unit subject Measure emissions of Method 320 in
to a compliance option in total HAP (as appendix A to 40
table 1A to this subpart; defined in Sec. CFR part 63; OR the
OR for each process unit 63.2292). NCASI Method IM/CAN/
used in calculation of an WP-99.02 (IBR, see
emissions average under Sec. 63.14(f));
Sec. 63.2240(c). OR the NCASI Method
ISS/WP-A105.01
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14(f)); OR ASTM
D6348-03 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14(b))
provided that
percent R as
determined in Annex
A5 of ASTM D6348-03
is equal or greater
than of 70 percent
and less than or
equal to 130
percent.
7. Each process unit subject Measure emissions of Method 308 in
to a compliance option in methanol. appendix A to 40
table 1B to this subpart CFR part 63; OR
for which you choose to Method 320 in
demonstrate compliance appendix A to 40
using a methanol compliance CFR part 63; OR the
option. NCASI Method CI/WP-
98.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14(f));
OR the NCASI Method
IM/CAN/WP-99.02
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14(f)); OR the
NCASI Method ISS/WP-
A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14(f)).
8. Each process unit subject Measure emissions of Method 316 in
to a compliance option in formaldehyde. appendix A to 40
table 1B to this subpart CFR part 63; OR
for which you choose to Method 320 in
demonstrate compliance appendix A to 40
using a formaldehyde CFR part 63; OR
compliance option. Method 0011 in
``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods''
(EPA Publication
No. SW-846) for
formaldehyde; OR
the NCASI Method CI/
WP-98.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14(f));
OR the NCASI Method
IM/CAN/WP-99.02
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14(f)); OR the
NCASI Method ISS/WP-
A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14(f)).

[[Page 44029]]

9. Each reconstituted wood Meet the design Methods 204 and 204A
product press at a new or specifications through 204F of 40
existing affected source or included in the CFR part 51,
reconstituted wood product definition of wood appendix M, to
board cooler at a new products enclosures determine capture
affected source subject to in Sec. 63.2292) efficiency (except
a compliance option in or, determine the for wood products
table 1B to this subpart or percent capture enclosures as
used in calculation of an efficiency of the defined in Sec.
emissions average under enclosure directing 63.2292).
Sec. 63.2240(c). emissions to an add- Enclosures that
on control device. meet the definition
of wood products
enclosure or that
meet Method 204
requirements for a
permanent total
enclosure (PTE) are
assumed to have a
capture efficiency
of 100 percent.
Enclosures that do
not meet either the
PTE requirements or
design criteria for
a wood products
enclosure must
determine the
capture efficiency
by constructing a
TTE according to
the requirements of
Method 204 and
applying Methods
204A through 204F
(as appropriate).
As an alternative
to Methods 204 and
204A through 204F,
you may use the
tracer gas method
contained in
appendix A to this
subpart.
10. Each reconstituted wood Determine the A TTE and Methods
product press at a new or percent capture 204 and 204A
existing affected source or efficiency. through 204F (as
reconstituted wood product appropriate) of 40
board cooler at a new CFR part 51,
affected source subject to appendix M. As an
a compliance option in alternative to
table 1A to this subpart. installing a TTE
and using Methods
204 and 204A
through 204F, you
may use the tracer
gas method
contained in
appendix A to this
subpart. Measured
emissions divided
by the capture
efficiency provides
the emission rate.
11. Each process unit Establish the site- Data from the
subject to a compliance specific operating parameter
option in tables 1A and 1B requirements monitoring system
to this subpart or used in (including the or THC CEMS and the
calculation of an emissions parameter limits or applicable
average under Sec. THC concentration performance test
63.2240(c). limits) in table 2 methods(s).
to this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Appendix A to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Alternative Procedure To
Determine Capture Efficiency From Enclosures Around Hot Presses in the
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Industry Using Sulfur Hexafluoride
Tracer Gas

10. Revise paragraphs 10.4 and 10.5 of section 10 to read as follows:

10.0 Calibration and Standardization.

* * * * *
10.4 Gas Chromatograph. Follow the pre-test calibration
requirements specified in section 8.5.1.
10.5 Gas Chromatograph for Ambient Sampling (Optional). For the
optional ambient sampling, follow the calibration requirements
specified in section 8.5.1 or ASTM E 260 and E 697 and by the
equipment manufacturer for gas chromatograph measurements.

Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Methodology and Criteria for
Demonstrating That an Affected Source Is Part of the Low-Risk
Subcategory of Plywood and Composite Wood Products Manufacturing
Affected Sources

11. In section 4, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

4. What are the criteria for determining if my affected source is low risk?

(a) Determine the individual HAP emission rates from each
process unit emission point within the affected source using the
procedures specified in section 5 of this appendix.
* * * * *
12. In section 5, revise paragraphs (a), (f)(1), and (f)(2) and add
paragraphs (i) through (k) to read as follows:

5. How do I determine HAP emissions from my affected source?

(a) You must determine HAP emissions for every process unit
emission point within the affected source that emits one or more of
the HAP listed in Table 1 to this appendix as specified in Table 2A
to this appendix. For each process unit type, Table 2A to this
appendix specifies whether emissions testing is required or if
emissions estimation is allowed as an alternative to emissions
testing. If emissions estimation is allowed according to Table 2A,
you must develop your emission estimates according to the
requirements in paragraph (k) of this section. You may choose to
perform emissions testing instead of emissions estimation. You must
conduct HAP emissions tests according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section and the methods specified
in Table 2B to this appendix. For each of the emission points at
your affected source, you must obtain the emission rates in pounds
per hour (lb/hr) for each of the pollutants listed in Table 1 to
this appendix.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) The method detection limit is less than or equal to 1 part
per million by volume, dry (ppmvd) for pollutant emissions measured
using Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; or Method 18 in
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60; or the NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02
(incorporated by reference (IBR), see 40 CFR 63.14(f)); or NCASI
Method ISS/FP-A105.01 (IBR, see 40 CFR 63.14(f); or ASTM D6348-03
(IBR, see 40 CFR 63.14(b)).
(2) For pollutants measured using Method 29 in appendix A to 40
CFR part 60, you analyze samples using atomic absorption
spectroscopy (AAS) or another laboratory method specified in Method
29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 with detection limits lower than
or equal to AAS.
* * * * *
(i) Use of previous emissions tests. You may use the results of
previous emissions tests provided that the following conditions are met:
(1) The previous emissions tests must have been conducted using
the methods specified in Table 2B to this appendix. Previous
emission test results obtained using NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01
are acceptable.
(2) The previous emissions tests must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section.
(3) The subject process unit(s) must be operated in the same
manner (e.g., same raw material type, same operating temperature,

[[Page 44030]]

etc.) as during the previous emissions test(s) and the process
unit(s) may not have been modified such that emissions would be
expected to differ (notwithstanding normal test-to-test variability)
from the previous emissions test(s).
(j) Use of test data for similar process units. If you have
multiple similar process units at the same plant site, you may apply
the test results from one of these process units to the other
similar process units for purposes of your low-risk demonstration
provided that the following conditions are met:
(1) You must explain how the process units are similar in terms
of design, function, heating method, raw materials processed,
residence time, change in material moisture content, operating
temperature, resin type processed, and any other parameters that may
affect emissions.
(2) If the process units have different throughput rates, then
you must convert the emission test results to terms of pounds of HAP
per unit throughput prior to applying the emissions test data to
other similar process units.
(3) If one of the process units would be expected to exhibit
higher emissions due to minor differences in process parameters,
then you must explain and test the process unit that would be
expected to exhibit greater emissions (for example, the unit with a
slightly higher temperature set point, dryer processing furnish with
slightly higher inlet moisture content, press processing thicker
panels, unit with the greater throughput, etc.).
(k) If emissions estimation is allowed, you must follow the
procedures in (1) through (3) of this paragraph.
(1) You must use the emission factors or other emission
estimation techniques specified in Table 2A to this appendix when
developing emission estimates.
(2) You must base your emission estimates on the maximum process
unit throughput you will incorporate into your permit according to
section 11(b) of this appendix.
(3) For process units with multiple emission points, you must
apportion the estimate emissions evenly across each emission point.
For example, if you have a process unit with two emission points,
and the process unit is estimated to emit 6 lb/hr, you would assign
3 lb/hr to each emission point.
13. Revise paragraphs (a) through (c) of section 6 to read as follows:

6. How do I conduct a look-up table analysis?

* * * * *
(a) Using the emission rate of each HAP required to be included
in your low-risk demonstration (determined according to section 5 of
this appendix), calculate your total toxicity-weighted carcinogen
and noncarcinogen emission rates for each of your emission points
using Equations 1 and 2 of this appendix, respectively. Calculate
your carcinogen and non-carcinogen weighted average stack height
using Equations 3 and 4 of this appendix, respectively.

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP29JY05.000

TWCER = Toxcity-weighted carcinogenic emission rate for each
emission point (1b/hr)/([mu]g/m\3\)
ER_i = Emission rate of pollutant I (lb/hr)
URE = Unit risk estimate for pollutant I, 1 per Microgram per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\)-1
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP29JY05.001

TWNER = Toxicity-weighted noncarcinogenic emission rate for each
emission point (lb/hr)/([mu]g/m\3\)
ER_i = Emission rate of pollutant I (lb/hr)
RfC_i = Reference concentration for pollutant I,
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP29JY05.002

WAHC = Carcinogen weighted average stack height for use in the
carcinogen lookup table (Table 3 to this appendix)
H = Height of each individual stack or emission point (m)
ep = Individual stacks or emission points
n = Total number of stacks and emission points
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP29JY05.003

WAHN = Non-carcinogen weighted average stack height for use in the
non-carcinogen lookup table (Table 4 to this appendix)
H = Height of each individual stack or emission point (m)
ep = Individual stacks or emission points
n = Total number of stacks and emission points

(b) Cancer risk. Calculate the total toxicity-weighted
carcinogen emission rate for your affected source by summing the
toxicity-weighted carcinogen emission rates for each of your
emission points. Identify the appropriate maximum allowable
toxicity-weighted carcinogen emission rate from Table 3 to this
appendix for your affected source using the carcinogen weighted
average stack height of your emission points and the minimum
distance between any emission point at the affected source and the
property boundary. If one or both of these values do not match the
exact values in the lookup table, then use the next lowest table
value. (Note: If your weighted average stack height is less than 5
meters (m), you must use the 5 m row.) Your affected source is
considered low risk for carcinogenic effects if your toxicity-
weighted carcinogen emission rate, determined using the methods
specified in this appendix, does not exceed the values specified in
Table 3 to this appendix.
(c) Noncancer risk. Calculate the total central nervous system
(CNS) and respiratory target organ specific toxicity-weighted
noncarcinogen emission rate for your affected source by summing the
toxicity-weighted emission rates for each of your emission points.
Identify the appropriate maximum allowable toxicity-weighted
noncarcinogen emission rate from Table 4 to this appendix for your
affected source using the non-carcinogen weighted average stack
height of your emission points and the minimum distance between any
emission point at the affected source and the property boundary. If
one or both of these values do not match the exact values in the
lookup table, then use the next lowest table value. (Note: If your
weighted average stack height is less than 5 m, you must use the 5 m
row.) Your affected source is considered low risk for
noncarcinogenic effects if your toxicity-weighted noncarcinogen
emission rate, determined using the methods specified in this
appendix, does not exceed the values specified in Table 4 to this appendix.
* * * * *

[[Page 44031]]

14. Revise paragraph (a) of section 7 to read as follows:

7. How do I conduct a site-specific risk assessment?

(a) Perform a site-specific risk assessment following the
procedures specified in this section. You may use any
scientifically-accepted peer-reviewed assessment methodology for
your site-specific risk assessment. An example of one approach to
performing a site-specific risk assessment for air toxics that may
be appropriate for your affected source can be found in the ``Air
Toxics Risk Assessment Guidance Reference Library, Volume 2, Site-
Specific Risk Assessment Technical Resource Document.'' You may
obtain a copy of the ``Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference
Library'' through EPA's air toxics Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html.

* * * * *
15. Revise paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(1), and (b)(3) of section 8 to
read as follows:

8. What information must I submit for the low-risk demonstration?

(a) * * *
(3) Emission test reports for each pollutant and process unit
based on the testing requirements and methods specified in Tables 2A
and 2B to this appendix, including a description of the process
parameters identified as being worst case. You must submit your
emissions calculations for each pollutant and process unit for which
emissions estimates are developed.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Identification of the stack heights for each emission point
included in the calculations of weighted average stack height.
* * * * *
(3) Calculations used to determine the toxicity-weighted
carcinogen and noncarcinogen emission rates and weighted average
stack heights according to section 6(a) of this appendix.
* * * * *
16. Revise paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 10 to read as follows:

10. When do I submit my low-risk demonstration?

* * * * *
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete
and submit for approval your low-risk demonstration no later than
April 1, 2007. * * *
(c) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source you must
conduct the emission tests specified in section 5 of this appendix
by September 28, 2004 or upon initial startup (whichever is later)
and use the results of these emissions tests to complete and submit
your low-risk demonstration within 180 days following September 28,
2004 or your initial startup date (whichever is later). * * *

17. Revise paragraph (b) of section 11 to read as follows:

11. How does my affected source become part of the low-risk subcategory
of PCWP facilities?

* * * * *
(b) Following EPA approval, the parameters that defined your
affected source as part of the low-risk subcategory (including, but
not limited to, production rate, annual emission rate, type of
control devices, process parameters reflecting the emissions rates
used for your low-risk demonstration) must be submitted for
incorporation as federally enforceable terms and conditions into
your title V permit. You must submit an application for a
significant permit modification to reopen your title V permit to
incorporate such terms and conditions according to the procedures
and schedules of 40 CFR part 71 or the EPA-approved program in
effect under 40 CFR part 70, as applicable.

18. Revise section 15 to read as follows:

15. Definitions.

The definitions in Sec. 63.2292 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
DDDD, apply to this appendix. Additional definitions applicable for
this appendix are as follows:
Agricultural fiber board press means a press used in the
production of an agricultural fiber based composite wood product. An
agricultural fiber board press is a process unit.
Agricultural fiberboard mat dryer means a dryer used to reduce
the moisture of wet-formed agricultural fiber mats by operation at
elevated temperature. An agricultural fiberboard mat dryer is a
process unit.
Atmospheric refiner means a piece of equipment operated under
atmospheric pressure for refining (rubbing or grinding) the wood
material into fibers or particles. Atmospheric refiners are operated
with continuous infeed and outfeed of wood material and atmospheric
pressures throughout the refining process. An atmospheric refiner is
a process unit.
Blending and forming operations means the process of mixing
adhesive and other additives with the (wood) furnish of the
composite panel and making a mat of resinated fiber, particles, or
strands to be compressed into a reconstituted wood product such as
particleboard, oriented strandboard, or medium density fiberboard.
Blending and forming operations are process units.
Emission point means an individual stack or vent from a process
unit that emits HAP required for inclusion in the low-risk
demonstration specified in this appendix. Process units may have
multiple emission points.
Fiber washer means a unit in which water-soluble components of
wood (hemicellulose and sugars) that have been produced during
digesting and refining are removed from the wood fiber. Typically
wet fiber leaving a refiner is further diluted with water and then
passed over a filter, leaving the cleaned fiber on the surface. A
fiber washer is a process unit.
Finishing sander means a piece of equipment that uses an
abrasive drum, belt, or pad to impart smoothness to the surface of a
plywood or composite wood product panel and to reduce the panel to
the prescribed thickness. A finishing sander is a process unit.
Finishing saw means a piece of equipment used to trim or cut
finished plywood and composite wood products panels to a certain
size. A finishing saw is a process unit.
Hardwood plywood press means a hot press which, through heat and
pressure, bonds assembled hardwood veneers (including multiple plies
of veneer and/or a substrate) and resin into a hardwood plywood
panel. A hardwood plywood press is a process unit.
Hardwood veneer kiln means an enclosed dryer operated in batch
cycles at elevated temperature to reduce the moisture content from
stacked hardwood veneer. A hardwood veneer kiln is a process unit.
Hazard Index (HI) means the sum of more than one hazard quotient
for multiple substances and/or multiple exposure pathways.
Hazard Quotient (HQ) means the ratio of the predicted media
concentration of a pollutant to the media concentration at which no
adverse effects are expected. For inhalation exposures, the HQ is
calculated as the air concentration divided by the reference
concentration (RfC).
Humidifier means a process unit used to increase the moisture
content of hardboard following pressing or after post-baking.
Typically, water vapor saturated air is blown over the hardboard
surfaces in a closed cabinet. A humidifier is a process unit.
I-joist curing chamber means an oven or a room surrounded by a
solid wall or heavy plastic flaps that uses heat, infrared, or
radio-frequency techniques to cure the adhesive. An I-joist curing
chamber is a process unit.
Log chipping means the production of wood chips from logs.
Log vat means a process unit that raises the temperature of the
logs inside by applying a heated substance, usually hot water and
steam, to the outside of the logs by spraying or soaking. A log vat
is a process unit.
Look-up table analysis means a risk screening analysis based on
comparing the toxicity-weighted HAP emission rate from the affected
source to the maximum allowable toxicity-weighted HAP emission rates
specified in Tables 3 and 4 to this appendix.
LSL press means a composite wood product press that presses a
loose mat of resinated strands into a billet by simultaneous
application of heat and pressure and forms laminated strand lumber.
An LSL press is a process unit.
LVL press means a composite wood product press that presses
resinated stacks of veneers into a solid billet by simultaneous
application of heat and pressure and forms laminated veneer lumber
or parallel strand lumber. An LVL press is a process unit.
Natural gas means a naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon
and non-hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the
earth's surface. The principal hydrocarbon constituent is methane.
Paddle-type particleboard dryer means a dryer that uses elevated
temperature to

[[Page 44032]]

remove moisture from particles and paddles to advance materials
through the dryer. This type of dryer removes moisture absorbed by
particles due to high ambient temperature. A paddle-type
particleboard dryer is a process unit.
Panel-trim chipper means a piece of equipment that accepts the
discarded pieces of veneer or pressed plywood and composite wood
products panels that are removed by finishing saws and reduces these
pieces to small elements. A panel-trim chipper is a process unit.
Particleboard extruder means a heated die oriented either
horizontally or vertically through which resinated particles are
continuously forced to form extruded particleboard products. A
particleboard extruder is a process unit.
Particleboard press mold means a press that consists of molds
that apply heat and pressure to form molded or shaped particleboard
products. A particleboard press mold is a process unit.
Propane means a colorless gas derived from petroleum and natural
gas, with the molecular structure C₃H₈.
Radio-frequency veneer redryer means a dryer heated by radio-
frequency waves that is used to redry veneer that has been
previously dried. A radio-frequency veneer redryer is a process unit.
Reference Concentration (RfC) means an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from
various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors
generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used.
Resin storage tank means any storage tank, container, or vessel
connected to plywood and composite wood product production that
contains resin additives. A resin storage tank is a process unit.
Rotary agricultural fiber dryer means a rotary dryer operated at
elevated temperature and used to reduce the moisture of agricultural
fiber. A rotary agricultural fiber dryer is a process unit.
Softwood plywood press means a hot press which, through heat and
pressure, bonds assembled softwood veneer plies and resin into a
softwood plywood panel. A softwood plywood press is a process unit.
Softwood veneer kiln means an enclosed dryer operated in batch
cycles at elevated temperature to reduce the moisture content from
stacked softwood veneer. A softwood veneer kiln is a process unit.
Stand-alone digester means a pressure vessel used to heat and
soften wood chips (usually by steaming) before the chips are sent to
a separate process unit for refining into fiber. A stand-alone
digester is a process unit.
Target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) means the sum of
hazard quotients for individual chemicals that affect the same organ
or organ system (e.g., respiratory system, central nervous system).
Unit Risk Estimate (URE) means the upper-bound excess lifetime
cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent
at a concentration of 1 microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) in air.
Wastewater/process water operation means equipment that
processes water in plywood or composite wood product facilities for
reuse or disposal. Wastewater/process water operations includes but
is not limited to pumps, holding ponds and tanks, cooling and
heating operations, settling systems, filtration systems, aeration
systems, clarifiers, pH adjustment systems, log storage ponds,
pollution control device water (including wash water), vacuum
distillation systems, sludge drying and disposal systems, spray
irrigation fields, and connections to POTW facilities. Wastewater/
process water operations are process units.
Worst-case operating conditions means operation of a process
unit during emissions testing under the conditions that result in
the highest HAP emissions or that result in the emissions stream
composition (including HAP and non-HAP) that is most challenging for
the control device if a control device is used. For example, worst
case conditions could include operation of the process unit at
maximum throughput, at its highest temperature, with the wood
species mix likely to produce the most HAP, and/or with the resin
formulation containing the greatest HAP.

19. Add Table 2A to read as follows:

Table 2A.--to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 63. Testing and Emissions Estimation Specifications for Process Units.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP metals from
Process unit type Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde Phenol Benzene MDI direct-fired
process units b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural fiberboard mat test............ test............ test............ test............ test........... NA............. test.
dryers, Dry rotary dryers,
Fiberboard mat dryer (heated
zones), Green rotary dryers,
Hardboard ovens, Hardwood
veneer dryers (heated
zones), Paddle-type
particleboard dryers, Press
predryers, Rotary
agricultural fiber dryers,
Rotary strand dryers,
Softwood veneer dryers
(heated zones), Veneer
redryers (heated by
conventional means).
Atmospheric refiners, test............ test............ test............ test............ test........... NA............. NA.
Conveyor strand dryers,
Pressurized refiners.
Primary tube dryers, test............ test............ test............ test............ test........... test if test.
Secondary tube dryers. processing
furnish with
MDI resin
added prior to
drying.
Agricultural fiber board test............ test............ test............ test............ test........... test if board NA.
presses, Reconstituted wood contains MDI
products presses, resin.
Reconstituted wood product
board coolers.

[[Page 44033]]

Blending and forming NA.............. NA.............. 0.060 lb/DOT.... NA.............. NA............. engineering NA.
operations--particleboard estimate if
and MDF. MDI resin used.
Blending and forming NA.............. NA.............. 0.0036 lb/MSF \3/ engineering NA............. engineering NA.
operations--OSB. 8\'' press estimate. estimate if
throughput. MDI resin used.
Dry forming--hardboard....... engineering NA.............. engineering engineering NA............. NA............. NA.
estimate. estimate. estimate.
Fiber washers................ 0.015 lb/ODT.... NA.............. 0.0026 lb/ODT... NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA.
Fiberboard mat dryer 0.0055 lb/MSF \1/ NA.............. 0.031lb/MSF \1/ NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA
(fugitive emissions). 2\''. 2\''.
Finishing sanders............ 0.0028 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. 0.0042 lb/MSF... 0.015 lb/MSF.... NA............. engineering NA.
8\''. estimate if
MDI resin used.
Finishing saws............... 0.00092 lb/MSF NA.............. 0.00034 lb/MSF 0.0057 lb/MSF... NA............. engineering NA.
\3/8\''. \3/8\''. estimate if
MDI resin used.
Hardwood plywood presses..... NA.............. NA.............. 0.0088 lb/MSF \3/ 0.016 lb/MSF \3/ NA............. NA............. NA.
8\''. 8\''.
Hardwood veneer dryer 0.058 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. 0.013 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA.
(cooling zones). 8\''. 8\''.
Hardwood veneer kilns........ 0.067 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. 0.016 lb/MSF \3/ 0.0053 lb/MSF \3/ NA............. NA............. NA.
8\''. 8\''. 8\''.
Humidifiers.................. 0.0018 lb/MSF \1/ 0.0087 lb/MSF \1/ 0.0010 lb/MSF \1/ 0.00057 lb/MSF 0.0000062 lb/ NA............. NA.
8\''. 8\''. 8\''. \1/8\''. MSF \1/8\''.
I-joist curing chambers...... NA.............. NA.............. 0.0018 lb/MSF... NA.............. NA............. engineering NA.
estimate if
MDI resin used.
Log vats..................... 0.0047 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. NA.............. NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA.
8\'' removed
from vate per
hour.
LSL presses.................. engineering NA.............. 0.029 lb/1000 ft engineering NA............. 0.18 lb/1000 ft NA.
estimate. 3. estimate. 3.
LVL presses.................. 0.29 lb/1000 ft NA.............. 0.79 lb/1000 ft NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA.
3. 3.
Lumber kilns................. 0.065 lb/MBF.... 0.009 lb/MBF.... 0.034 lb/MBF.... 0.010 lb/MBF.... NA............. NA............. Engineering
estimate.
Panel-trim chippers.......... 0.00081 lb/MSF NA.............. 0.00034 lb/MSF 0.0019 lb/MSF \3/ NA............. NA............. NA.
\3/8\'' \3/8\'' 8\'' finished
finished board finished board board
production. production. production.
Particleboard press molds, 0.034 lb/MSF \3/ 0.0087 lb/MSF \3/ 0.64 lb/MSF \3/ 0.024 lb/MSF \3/ 0.0073 lb/MSF NA............. NA.
Particleboard extruders. 4\''. 4\''. 4\''. 4\''. \3/4\''.
Radio-frequency veneer 0.0029 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. 0.00065 lb/MSF NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA.
redryers. 8\''. \3/8\''.
Resin storage tanks.......... NA.............. NA.............. 0.19 lb/hr per 0.18 lb/hr per NA............. 0.0013 lb/hr NA.
tank for tanks tank for tanks per tank for
with resin with resin tanks with MDI
containing containing resin OR model
formaldehyde OR phenol OR model using TANKS
model using using TANKS software a.
TANKS software software a.
a.

[[Page 44034]]

Softwood plywood presses..... 0.012 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. 0.0054 lb/MSF \3/ 0.0022 lb/MSF \3/ NA............. NA............. NA.
8\''. 8\''. 8\''.
Softwood veneer dryers 0.012 lb/MSF \3/ NA.............. 0.0028 lb/MSF \3/ 0.011 lb/MSF \3/ NA............. NA............. NA.
(cooling zones). 8\''. 8\''. 8\''.
Softwood veneer kilns........ 0.097 lb/MSF \3/ 0.012 lb/MSF \3/ 0.010 lb/MSF \3/ 0.020 lb/MSF \3/ 0.0078 lb/MSF NA............. NA.
8\''. 8\''. 8\''. 8\''. \3/8\''.
Stand-alone digesters........ 0.030 lb/ODT.... 0.0024 lb/ODT... 0.0045 lb/ODT... 0.0012 lb/ODT... NA............. NA............. NA.
Wastewater/process water engineering engineering engineering engineering engineering engineering NA.
operations. estimate (such estimate (such estimate (such estimate (such estimate (such estimate (such
as WATER9 a or as WATER9 a or as WATER9 a or as WATER9 a or as WATER9 a or as WATER9 a or
other method). other method). other method). other method). other method). other method)
if MDI resin
used.
Wet forming--fiberboard and 0.0075 lb/MSF \1/ NA.............. 0.0036 lb/MSF \1/ NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA.
hardboard (without PF resin). 2\''. 2\''.
Wet forming--hardboard (PF 0.0067 lb/ODT... NA.............. 0.00039 lb/ODT.. 0.00075 lb/ODT.. NA............. NA............. NA.
resin).
Miscellaneous coating NA.............. NA.............. NA.............. NA.............. NA............. NA............. NA.
operations, Log chipping,
Softwood veneer dryer
fugitive emissions.
Other ancillary processes engineering engineering engineering engineering engineering engineering engineering
(not listed elsewhere in estimate. estimate. estimate. estimate. estimate. estimate. estimate
this table) that may emit
HAP listed in this table.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
test: Emissions testing must be conducted for the process unit and pollutant according to the test methods specified in Table 2B to appendix B to
supbart DDDD.
NA: Not applicable. No emission estimates or emissions testing is required for purposes of the low-risk demonstration.
lb/50 MSF: Pounds of HAP per thousand square feet of board of the inches thickness specified (e.g., lb/MSF \3/4\ = pounds of HAP per thousand square
feet of \3/4\-inch board). See equation in Sec. 63.2262(j) of subpart DDDD to convert from one thickness basis to another.
lb/ODT: 50 Pounds of HAP per oven dried ton of wood material.
lb/MBF: Pounds of HAP per thousand board feet.
lb/MLF: Pounds of HAP per thousand linear feet.
a TANKS and WATER9 software is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/index.html. b Excludes
direct-fired process units fired with only natural gas or propane.

20. Redesignate Table 2 as Table 2B and revise to read as follows:

Table 2B to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63.--Emission Test
Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . . Using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each process unit Select sampling Method 1 or 1A of 40
required to be tested ports' location and CFR part 60,
according to table 2A to the number of appendix A (as
this appendix. traverse points. appropriate).
2. Each process unit Determine velocity Method 2 in addition
required to be tested and volumetric flow to Method 2A, 2C,
according to table 2A to rate 2D, 2F, or 2G in
this appendix. appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 (as
appropriate).
3. Each process unit Conduct gas Method 3, 3A, or 3B
required to be tested molecular weight in appendix A to 40
according to table 2A to analysis. CFR part 60 (as
this appendix. appropriate).
4. Each process unit Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix
required to be tested content of the A to 40 CFR part
according to table 2A to stack gas. 60.
this appendix.
5. Each process unit Measure emissions of NCASI Method IM/CAN/
required to be tested the following HAP: WP-99.02 (IBR, see
according to table 2A to Acetaldehyde, 40 CFR 63.14(f));
this appendix. acrolein, OR Method 320 in
formaldehyde, and appendix A to 40
phenol. CFR part 63; OR the
NCASI Method ISS/WP-
A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14(f));
OR ASTM D6348-03
(IBR, see 40 CFR
63.14(b)) provided
that percent R as
determined in Annex
A5 of ASTM D6348-03
is equal or greater
than 70 percent and
less than or equal
to 130 percent.

[[Page 44035]]

6. Each process unit Measure emissions of Method 18 in
required to be tested benzene. appendix A to 40
according to table 2A to CFR part 60; NCASI
this appendix. Method IM/CAN/WP-
99.02 (IBR, see 40
CFR 63.14(f)); OR
Method 320 in
appendix A to 40
CFR part 63; OR
ASTM D6348-03 (IBR,
see 40 CFR
63.14(b)) provided
that percent R as
determined in Annex
A5 of ASTM D6348-03
is equal or greater
than 70 percent and
less than or equal
to 130 percent.
7. Each process unit that Measure emissions of Method 320 in
processes material MDI. appendix A to 40
containing MDI resin CFR part 63; OR
required to be tested Conditional Test
according to table 2A to Method (CTM) 031
this appendix. which is posted on
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ctm.html.
8. Each direct-fired process Measure emissions of Method 29 in
unit a required to be the following HAP appendix A to 40
tested according to table metals: Arsenic, CFR part 60.
2A to this appendix. beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead,
manganese, and
nickel.
9. Each reconstituted wood Meet the design Methods 204 and 204A
product press or specifications through 204F of 40
reconstituted wood product included in the CFR part 51,
board cooler with a HAP definition of wood appendix M to
control device. products enclosure determine capture
in Sec. 63.2292 efficiency (except
of subpart DDDD of for wood products
40 CFR part 63 or enclosures as
determine the defined in Sec.
percent capture 63.2292).
efficiency of the Enclosures that
enclosure directing meet the definition
emissions to an add- of wood products
on control device. enclosure or that
meet Method 204
requirements for a
PTE are assumed to
have a capture
efficiency of 100
percent. Enclosures
that do not meet
either the PTE
requirements or
design criteria for
a wood products
enclosure must
determine the
capture efficiency
by constructing a
TTE according to
the requirements of
Method 204 and
applying Methods
204A through 204F
(as appropriate).
As an alternative
to Methods 204 and
204A through 204F,
you may use the
tracer gas method
contained in
appendix A to
subpart DDDD.
10. Each reconstituted wood Determine the A TTE and Methods
product press or percent capture 204 and 204A
reconstituted wood product efficiency. through 204F (as
board cooler required to be appropriate) of 40
tested according to table CFR part 51,
2A to this appendix. appendix M. As an
alternative to
installing a TTE
and using Methods
204 and 204A
through 204F, you
may use the tracer
gas method
contained in
appendix A to
subpart DDDD.
Measured emissions
divided by the
capture efficiency
provides the
emission rate.
11. Each process unit with a Establish the site- Data from the
HAP control device required specific operating parameter
to be tested according to requirements monitoring system
table 2A to this appendix. (including the or THC CEMS and the
parameter limits or applicable
THC concentration performance test
limits) in table 2 method(s).
to subpart DDDD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Excludes direct-fired process units fired with only natural gas or
propane.

21. Revise Table 3 to read as follows:

Table 3 to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 63.--Maximum Allowable Toxicity-Weighted Carcinogen Emission Rate (lb/hr)/([mu]g/m3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to property boundary (m)
Stack height (m) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5................... 8.72E-07 8.72E-07 8.72E-07 9.63E-07 1.25E-06 1.51E-06 2.66E-06 4.25E-06 4.39E-06 4.39E-06 4.39E-06 5.00E-06
10.................. 2.47E-06 2.47E-06 2.47E-06 2.47E-06 2.47E-06 2.61E-06 3.58E-06 5.03E-06 5.89E-06 5.89E-06 5.89E-06 6.16E-06
20.................. 5.81E-06 5.81E-06 5.81E-06 5.81E-06 5.81E-06 5.81E-06 5.90E-06 7.39E-06 8.90E-06 9.97E-06 9.97E-06 1.12E-05
30.................. 7.74E-06 7.74E-06 7.74E-06 7.74E-06 7.74E-06 7.74E-06 8.28E-06 9.49E-06 1.17E-05 1.35E-05 1.55E-05 1.61E-05
40.................. 9.20E-06 9.20E-06 9.20E-06 9.20E-06 9.20E-06 9.20E-06 9.24E-06 1.17E-05 1.34E-05 1.51E-05 1.98E-05 2.22E-05
50.................. 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.02E-05 1.36E-05 1.53E-05 1.66E-05 2.37E-05 2.95E-05
60.................. 1.13E-05 1.13E-05 1.13E-05 1.13E-05 1.13E-05 1.13E-05 1.13E-05 1.53E-05 1.76E-05 1.85E-05 2.51E-05 3.45E-05
70.................. 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.23E-05 1.72E-05 2.04E-05 2.06E-05 2.66E-05 4.07E-05
80.................. 1.34E-05 1.34E-05 1.34E-05 1.34E-05 1.34E-05 1.34E-05 1.34E-05 1.92E-05 2.15E-05 2.31E-05 2.82E-05 4.34E-05
100................. 1.52E-05 1.52E-05 1.52E-05 1.52E-05 1.52E-05 1.52E-05 1.52E-05 1.97E-05 2.40E-05 2.79E-05 3.17E-05 4.49E-05
200................. 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 2.06E-05 2.94E-05 3.24E-05 4.03E-05 5.04E-05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR=1E-06.

[[Page 44036]]

22. Revise Table 4 to read as follows:

Table 4 to Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of 40 CFR Part 63.--Maximum Allowable Toxicity-Weighted Noncarcinogen Emission Rate (lb/hr)/([mu]g/m3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to property boundary (m)
Stack height (m) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5................... 2.51E-01 2.51E-01 3.16E-01 3.16E-01 3.16E-01 3.16E-01 3.16E-01 3.46E-01 4.66E-01 6.21E-01 9.82E-01 1.80E+00
10.................. 5.62E-01 5.62E-01 5.62E-01 5.62E-01 5.62E-01 5.62E-01 5.62E-01 5.70E-01 6.33E-01 7.71E-01 1.13E+00 1.97E+00
20.................. 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 1.68E+00 1.83E+00 2.26E+00 3.51E+00
30.................. 2.36E+00 2.36E+00 2.36E+00 2.36E+00 2.36E+00 2.36E+00 2.53E+00 3.04E+00 3.04E+00 3.33E+00 4.45E+00 5.81E+00
40.................. 3.11E+00 3.11E+00 3.11E+00 3.11E+00 3.11E+00 3.11E+00 3.42E+00 4.04E+00 5.07E+00 5.51E+00 6.39E+00 9.63E+00
50.................. 3.93E+00 3.93E+00 3.93E+00 3.93E+00 3.93E+00 3.93E+00 4.49E+00 4.92E+00 6.95E+00 7.35E+00 8.99E+00 1.25E+01
60.................. 4.83E+00 4.83E+00 4.83E+00 4.83E+00 4.83E+00 4.83E+00 5.56E+00 6.13E+00 7.80E+00 1.01E+01 1.10E+01 1.63E+01
70.................. 5.77E+00 5.77E+00 5.77E+00 5.77E+00 5.77E+00 5.77E+00 6.45E+00 7.71E+00 8.83E+00 1.18E+01 1.36E+01 1.86E+01
80.................. 6.74E+00 6.74E+00 6.74E+00 6.74E+00 6.74E+00 6.74E+00 7.12E+00 9.50E+00 1.01E+01 1.29E+01 1.72E+01 2.13E+01
100................. 8.87E+00 8.87E+00 8.87E+00 8.87E+00 8.87E+00 8.87E+00 8.88E+00 1.19E+01 1.37E+01 1.55E+01 2.38E+01 2.89E+01
200................. 1.70E+01 1.70E+01 1.70E+01 1.70E+01 1.70E+01 1.70E+01 1.70E+01 2.05E+01 2.93E+01 3.06E+01 4.02E+01 4.93E+01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI=1.

[FR Doc. 05-14532 Filed 7-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products

Local Navigation