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

Related Material

Other Related Documents

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

[Federal Register: August 8, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41717-41739]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08au01-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7024-9]
RIN 2060-AH42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Comments
submitted by e-mail must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use
of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file
format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note
the docket number: A-2000-43. No confidential business information
(CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed
online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Ms. Maria Noell, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA
will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed
by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by the
EPA, the information may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. A request for a public hearing must be made by the
date specified under the DATES section. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be
held should contact: Ms. Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division, (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919)
541-5607 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Maria
Noell to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public
hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present
data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered in the development of this rulemaking. The
docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members
of the public and industries involved to identify and locate documents
readily so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the
case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The
regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed NESHAP will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted
on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. Additional related information
may also be found on the Air Toxics Website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
uatw/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. If more information

[[Page 41719]]

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

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

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

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

I. Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 41720]]

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

II. Summary of the Proposed Standards

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

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

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

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

[[Page 41721]]

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

C. What Are the Proposed Affected Sources?

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

D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Compliance Dates?

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 41722]]

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

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Are We Defining the Source Category?

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

[[Page 41723]]

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

B. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 41724]]

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

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

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

[[Page 41725]]

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

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

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

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

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

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

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

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

C. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?

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

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

[[Page 41726]]

The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
This is because the proposed rule applies to affected sources in the
flexible polyurethane foam fabrication industry, not to States or local
governments. Nor will State law be preempted or any mandates be imposed
on States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. The EPA notes,
however, that although not required to do so by this Executive Order
(or otherwise), it did consult with State governments during
development of this proposed rule.

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

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (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'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
because we are not aware of any Indian tribal governments or
communities affected by the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

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

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance. No children's risk analysis was performed because no
alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at
a reasonable cost. Additionally, this proposed rule is not
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total annual cost of this proposed
rule for any 1 year has been estimated at $60,000 per year. Thus,
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that this
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

[[Page 41727]]

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

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

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will
be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2027.01), and you may obtain a copy
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at
farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
According to the ICR, the total 3-year monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping burden for this collection is 3,634 labor hours, and the
annual average burden is 1,211 labor hours. The labor cost over the 3-
year period is $154,399 or $51,466 per year. The annualized capital
cost for monitoring equipment is $997. Annual operation and maintenance
costs are $4,982 over 3 years, averaging $1,661 per year. This estimate
includes a one-time plan for demonstrating compliance, annual
compliance certificate reports, notifications, and recordkeeping.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after August 8, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by September 7, 2001. The
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

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

[[Page 41728]]

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

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Dated: July 31, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart MMMMM to read as follows:
Subpart MMMMM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations

What this Subpart Covers

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

Emission Limitations

63.8790 What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

[[Page 41729]]

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables

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

What This Subpart Covers

Sec. 63.8780 What is the purpose of this subpart?

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

Sec. 63.8782 Am I subject to this subpart?

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

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

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

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

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

Emission Limitations

Sec. 63.8790 What emission limitations must I meet?

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

General Compliance Requirements

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

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

[[Page 41730]]

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

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

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

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

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

Where:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 41731]]

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

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

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

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

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

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

[[Page 41732]]

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

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

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

Notification, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.8816 What notifications must I submit and when?

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

Sec. 63.8818 What reports must I submit and when?

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

[[Page 41733]]

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

Sec. 63.8820 What records must I keep?

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

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

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

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

[[Page 41734]]

Sec. 63.8828 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

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

Sec. 63.8830 What definitions apply to this subpart?

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

Tables

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

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

[[Page 41735]]

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

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

[[Page 41736]]

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

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

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

[[Page 41737]]

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

[[Page 41738]]

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

[[Page 41739]]

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

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

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: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations

Related Material

Local Navigation