Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AH42

OAR ID: [OAR-2002-0080; FRL-7461-1]

NOTICE: Part VII

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

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

EFFECTIVE DATES: April 14, 2003.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources at flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities. The EPA has identified flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. These standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all such major sources to meet HAP emission standards that reflect the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The primary HAP that will be controlled with this action include hydrochloric acid (HCl), 2,4toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN). This action will also preclude the use of methylene chloride. 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. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and the people living around the facilities covered by today's final rule for this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we 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, and today's final rule reduces emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced. This final rule will reduce HAP emissions by 6.5 tons per year (tpy) from each new or reconstructed affected source performing flame lamination.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Docket. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 5661744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 5661742.

Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph entitled ``Docket.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b), judicial review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or before June 13, 2003. Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2)of the CAA, the requirements established by today's final action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding we bring to enforce these requirements.

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:
Category SIC \a\ NAICS \b\ Regulated entities Industry......................................... 3086 32615 Fabricators of flexible polyurethane foam. \a\ Standard Industrial Classification.

\b\ North American Information Classification System

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.8782 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult your State or local agency (or EPA Regional Office) described in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Introduction and Background

[[Page 18063]]

A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?

B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?

C. How did the public participate in developing the rule?

D. Description of Source Category
II. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
III. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What are the affected sources?

B. What are the emissions limitations and compliance dates?

C. What are the testing, initial compliance, and continuous compliance requirements?

D. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses

A. What sources are subject to the rule?

B. What issues were raised regarding adhesiveuse sources?

C. What issues were raised regarding flame lamination sources? V. What are the environmental, cost, and economic impacts of the final rule?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

E. Executive Order 13132Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

J. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction and 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. The category of major sources covered by today's final rule was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major source under section 112 means any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more 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 minimum control level allowed for NESHAP, which we refer to as the ``MACT floor,'' is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that standards are 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 bettercontrolled 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 bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Rule?

Prior to proposal, we met with industry representatives and State regulatory authorities several times to discuss the data and information used to develop the proposed standards. In addition, these and other potential stakeholders, including equipment vendors and environmental groups, had opportunity to comment on the proposed standards.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2001 (66 FR 41718). The preamble to the proposed rule discussed the availability of technical support documents, which described in detail the information gathered during the standards development process. Public comments were solicited at proposal, including a specific request for comments with regard to the potential existence of non slitter adhesive use by major sources.

We received eight public comment letters on the proposed rule. The commenters represent the following affiliations: foam fabricators (2 companies), industrial trade associations (5), and one private research group. In the postproposal period, we talked with commenters and other stakeholders to clarify comments and to assist in our analysis of the comments. Records of these contacts are found in Docket OAR20000080 or Docket A200043. All of the comments have been carefully considered, and, where appropriate, changes have been made for the final rule.

D. Description of Source Category

Today's 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 offsite from foam production plants.

We have identified two subcategories under the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source category. These subcategories are loop slitter HAPbased adhesive use and flame lamination.

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. In order to comply with Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations, loop slitters have converted from a reliance on methylene chloridebased adhesives to other nonHAP alternatives since the mid1990's. As a result of the OSHA regulations, we believe that the foam fabrication industry has effectively discontinued the use of methylene chloride based adhesives on loop slitters. Consequently, our estimate of current nationwide HAP emissions from loop slitter adhesive use prior to the development of the NESHAP (referred to as ``baseline emissions'') is zero.

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. Specific HAP released are dependent on the contents of the foam being laminated at a given time. With the exception of HCl, these HAP are generally released in very small amounts.

II. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

In response to comments received on the proposed NESHAP and further analysis, we made two significant changes for the final rule, and a small number of other changes for editorial purposes and clarification. [[Page 18064]]

The proposed rule included an emission limit for loop slitters of zero HAP emissions. Information subsequently supplied by commenters and industry contacts demonstrated that the widely used npropyl bromide adhesives originally believed to be nonHAP actually contain small amounts of HAP.

In accordance with the definition of ``HAPbased'' in the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart III), we have changed the definition of ``HAPbased adhesive'' to contain 5 percent (by weight) or more of HAP. We also changed the emission limit accordingly.

At post proposal, it came to our attention that the test methods specified for measurement of HCN emissions from process, storage tank, and transfer vents (EPA Methods 18, 25, and 25A) have not been validated for measurement of HCN. Test methods that have been used for measurement of HCN include the EPA Conditional Test Method CTM033 ``Draft Method for Sampling and Analysis of Hydrogen Cyanide Emissions for Stationary Sources'' and California Air Resources Board Method 426 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ctm.html) modified to use ion chromatography for sample analysis. However, neither of these methods have been fully validated at this time. Consequently, the final rule has been written to require that the data from any test method used to measure HCN emissions from flame lamination sources must be validated using EPA Method 301.

Another change made for the final rule was the addition of a definition for ``research and development process'' to clarify the provision in Sec. 63.8782(d)(2) that such processes are not subject to the rule, and a change to Sec. 63.8786(e) so that collection of compliance data prior to the compliance date is no longer required.

We proposed to exclude nonslitters from the source category based on our findings that there were no nonslitters using HAPbased adhesives located on the site of a major source, and solicited comment and supporting information regarding that issue. We received no comment or supporting information contrary to our findings, therefore, we are excluding the nonslitter adhesive use from the source category definition. Additional changes were insignificant and editorial in nature.
III. Summary of Final Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources?

The final rule defines two affected sources (units or collections of units to which a given standard or limit applies) corresponding to the two subcategories, loop slitter adhesive use and flame lamination. The loop slitter adhesive use affected source is the collection of loop slitters and associated adhesive application equipment used to apply HAPbased 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 HAPbased adhesives on or after April 14, 2003, are subject to the NESHAP, including the applicable emission limit and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. However, loop slitter affected sources that have eliminated use of HAPbased adhesives by April 14, 2003, are not 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.

B. What Are the Emission Limitations and Compliance Dates?

If you own or operate an existing, new, or reconstructed loop slitter adhesive use affected source, the final rule prohibits you from using any HAPbased adhesives. We are defining HAPbased adhesives as adhesives containing 5 percent (by weight) or greater of 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) or other approved information. Existing affected sources must be in compliance by April 14, 2004. New or reconstructed sources must be in compliance by the date of startup of the affected source, or by April 14, 2003, whichever is later.

If you own or operate an existing flame lamination affected source, you are not required to meet any emission limitation; you are only subject to a requirement to submit an initial notification within 120 days after April 14, 2003. If you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, the NESHAP requires that you reduce HAP emissions from the affected source by 90 percent. Your new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source must be in compliance with the emission limit upon startup or by April 14, 2003, whichever is later.
C. What Are the Testing, Initial Compliance, and Continuous Compliance Requirements?

If you own or operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication loop slitter adhesive use or flame lamination affected source, you must comply with the testing, initial compliance, and continuous compliance requirements in the following paragraphs.

Loop Slitter Adhesive Use

If you own or operate a loop slitter affected source, you must demonstrate initial and continuous compliance by certifying that no HAPbased adhesives are or will be used. You must submit this initial certification within 60 days of the compliance date. The certification must 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, you must recertify compliance, including HAP content information on any new adhesives used at the source.

The final rule allows you to use methods other than Method 311, including an approved alternative method or any other reasonable means to determine the HAP content of adhesives. Other reasonable means include a material safety data sheet (MSDS), a certified product data sheet (CPDS), or a manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet. However, 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. You 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.

Flame Lamination

If you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, the final rule requires that you demonstrate initial compliance 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, you must continuously monitor control device parameters. Specifically for venturi scrubbers, which we believe will be the control device of choice in most situations, you are required to continuously monitor the pH of the
[[Page 18065]]
scrubber effluent, the scrubber liquid flow rate, and the pressure drop across the venturi. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by these monitored parameters staying within the operating limits. Operating limits must be established for each parameter based on monitoring conducted during the initial performance test and reported in your facility's Notification of Compliance Status Report.
D. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

If you own or operate foam fabrication operations at major sources, you must submit several notifications and reports, which are listed and then briefly described in this section. First, you must submit an initial notification. In addition, if you own or operate a flexible polyurethane loop slitter adhesive use affected source or a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, you must also submit the following notification and reports:
[sbull] Notification of Intent to Conduct a Performance Test (new or reconstructed flame laminators only);
[sbull] Notification of Compliance Status reports;
[sbull] Periodic Compliance reports; and
[sbull] Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction reports (new or reconstructed flame laminators only).

For the Initial Notification, you must notify us that your facility is subject to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP, and provide specified basic information about your facility. You must submit this notification within 120 days after April 14, 2003, for existing affected sources. If you own or operate a new or reconstructed affected source, you are required to submit the application for construction or reconstruction required by Sec. 63.9(b)(iii) of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, in lieu of the Initial Notification.

For the Notification of Intent report, for each new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source that you own or operate, you must notify us in writing of the intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin. You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status report within 60 days of completion of the performance test. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you must include 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).

If you own or operate a source complying with the standards for loop slitter adhesive use, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status within 60 days of the compliance date. In the Notification of Compliance Status, you 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.

If you own or operate a facility that is subject to control requirements under these NESHAP, you must submit a Periodic Compliance report, which reports continued compliance with the flame lamination new source emission limit semiannually, and continued compliance with the loop slitter adhesive use HAPbased usage limit annually.

Finally, for the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction report, if you own or operate a new or reconstructed flame lamination affected source, you must report any startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period which does not meet the emission limitations set out in 40 CFR 63.8790 and is not in the facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

If you own or operate a flame lamination or loop slitter adhesive use source, you must 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.

IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses

This section includes discussion of significant comments on the proposed rule. For a complete summary of all the comments received on the proposed rule and our responses to them, refer to the ``Background Information Document for Promulgation of National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP): Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication'' (hereafter called the ``response to comments document'') in Docket OAR20020080 or A200043. The docket also contains the actual comment letters and supporting documentation developed for the final rule.

A. What Sources Are Subject to the Rule?

Comment: We received one comment requesting that we regulate area sources in the flexible polyurethane foam fabrication industry. The commenter asserted that there are a large number of area sources in this source category and cited examples of other source categories for which both area and major sources are regulated.

Response: According to section 112(c)(3) of the CAA, the Administrator must list area source categories separately from major source categories, and only if the Administrator finds that a category of area sources ''* * * presents a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment (by such sources individually or in the aggregate) warranting regulation under this section.'' We have listed flexible foam fabrication operations as an area source category for further scrutiny and will address the emissions from area sources in this source category in a separate action (64 FR 38721, July 19, 1999). B. What Issues Were Raised Regarding AdhesiveUse Sources?

Comment: The proposed rule included a provision that loop slitters could use no HAPbased adhesives, with HAPbased adhesives defined as ``an adhesive containing detectable HAP, according to EPA Method 311 or another approved alternative.'' The data for existing loop slitters that were available to us during the development of the proposed rule indicated that 22 of 30 facilities use no HAPbased adhesives. Several commenters asserted that the adhesives commonly used by the industry on their loop slitters do contain small amounts of HAP. A survey conducted by one of the commenters indicated that 11 of the 20 loop slitter facilities surveyed use an npropyl bromide adhesive which contains 0.32 to 1.0 percent 1,2Epoxybutane by weight.

Response: The information supplied by commenters and industry contacts demonstrates that the widelyused npropyl bromide adhesives, originally believed to be nonHAP, actually contain trace amounts of HAP, which we believe are present mostly as impurities. In accordance with the definition of ``HAPbased'' in the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart III), we have written the definition of ``HAPbased adhesive'' in the final rule to contain 5 percent (by weight) or more of HAP.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that we set a numerical, technologybased emission limitation for loop slitters, rather than banning the use of HAPbased adhesives. The commenters explained that a numerical or technologybased MACT standard would allow industry to lower their emissions using control technologies that are currently available or being developed.

[[Page 18066]]

Response: Our determination that the MACT floor for loop slitter adhesive use is no HAPbased adhesives makes the use of a numerical or technologybased emission limitation inappropriate. Although it may be possible to greatly reduce HAP emissions through use of technology, we believe that elimination of the use of HAPbased adhesives in loop slitter operations is required by section 112(d)(3) of the CAA because of the number of facilities using no HAPbased adhesives in their loop slitter operations. Accordingly, no changes were made for the final rule with regard to this issue.

Comment: Comments were received encouraging us to regulate non slitter adhesive use applications in order to control emissions of methylene chloride. The commenter asserted that many major source facilities are still using methylene chloridebased adhesives in non loop slitter applications.

Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule, we specifically requested comments on this issue. We stated that if comments demonstrated that ``there are nonsliter 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.'' Based on available information, we found no nonslitters on sites of major sources. Thus, there is no basis to retain non slitter adhesive use sources in this category. We have listed flexible foam fabrication operations as an area source category for further scrutiny and will address the emissions from area sources under section 112(k) of the CAA.

Comment: Several comments were received expressing concerns regarding the adhesives being used as alternatives to HAPbased adhesives, for both loop slitter and nonslitter adhesive applications. Some commenters mentioned that npropyl bromide has been the subject of a number of ``substantial risk'' notifications under the Toxic Substances Control Act and is also the subject of toxicity testing under the National Toxicology Program, and urged us to consider regulating npropyl bromide emissions.

Response: We are aware of this situation, but have no authority under section 112 to regulate npropyl bromide since it is not currently listed as a HAP.

Comment: Another commenter asked us to investigate and identify the secondary air impacts of HAP or volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the use of the adhesives being used as alternatives to methylene chloride. If they emit VOC, the commenter recommended that we regulate those emissions so as not to exacerbate local efforts to comply with other air pollution regulations.

Response: The NESHAP for foam fabrication operations protects air quality and promotes the public health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of the CAA. The mandate for the NESHAP program does not extend to control of VOC (unless they are HAP). Additionally, VOC emissions are addressed elsewhere in the CAA, both in section 110 which addresses State implementation plans for States with ozone nonattainment areas under the national ambient air quality standards; and in section 111, which includes new source performance standards. Moreover, the current record does not indicate that there are any significant secondary air impacts (i.e., increased emissions of other HAP or VOC) from the use of alternatives to methylene chloride. Thus, the Agency finds that the investigation requested by the commenter is unwarranted. We believe that the reporting requirements that were proposed for loop slitter facilities are adequate, and they remain unchanged for the final rule.
C. What Issues Were Raised Regarding Flame Lamination Sources?

Comment: One commenter asserted that the proposed MACT for existing flame lamination sources (no additional control) is not the maximum degree of HAP reduction that could be achieved and requested that MACT for these sources be based on ``the performance of the best two facilities,'' excluding consideration of uncontrolled sources.

Response: We are required to calculate the MACT floor for existing sources based on the central tendency of the emission limitation achieved by the best performing five major sources for a subcategory with less than 30 major sources (such as flame lamination). Evaluation of only the two best performing sources, as requested by the commenter, is not consistent with this statutory requirement.

The data for existing flame lamination sources that were available during the development of the proposed rule indicated that two of the top five major sources control HAP emissions using a scrubber and three do not control HAP emissions. We chose not to use the mean as the measure of central tendency because it would result in a MACT floor that does not represent the performance of an actual control device. In this case, using the median or the mode resulted in the same MACT floor (no additional control).

In addition to controls, we also investigated the possibility that materials substitution or work practice standards could represent the MACT floor.

The flame lamination of any foam generates HAP emissions, most notably HCN and TDI. These compounds are present in the foam as a result of the polyurethane foam manufacturing process, which is regulated under separate MACT standards. Changing the use of these compounds would change the inherent properties of the foam and, thus, we rejected this raw material substitution as a potential MACT floor control strategy.

In addition, the flame lamination of foams containing chlorinated fire retardants also results in emission of the HAP HCl. The frequency of use of chlorinated fire retardant foams varies considerably from one facility to another, and may also vary over time at any single facility. Although some facilities do not use fire retardant foams at all, most use them some of the time. The fire retardancy is a necessary characteristic of the foam where the customer requires fire retardancy as a product specification, e.g., foam in automobiles and bedding.

The top two facilities on our list stated that they laminated fire retardant foam approximately 30 percent of the time for the years the data were gathered. As product mix and customer demands change, the percent of fire retardant foam flame laminated at a facility can vary considerably. Because there is no clear subdivision of the industry between facilities that use fire retardant foams and those that do not, we deemed any further subdivision of the industry because of this issue to be unreasonable.

Although there may be nonchlorinated fire retardant foams available to flame laminators, they are not currently in use by any of the lowestemitting five flame lamination facilities. Thus, we determined that product substitution does not represent the MACT floor for the flame lamination subcategory.

We also considered the possibility that the MACT floor might be represented by work practices. The nature of the flame lamination process does not lend itself to any typical work practices used to minimize HAP emissions. There are no emissions related to transport and storage of raw materials, or to cleaning of the equipment, and there is no HAPcontaining waste. In fact, the HAP emissions are created during the process by the physical act of scorching the foam. The scorching makes the foam
[[Page 18067]]
sticky so it will adhere to the other substrate, but also releases HAP. Because there are no emissionreducing work practice standards in use at flame lamination facilities we did not find that the MACT floor may be represented by any work practice standards.

We considered more stringent ``abovethefloor'' options for MACT, including 90 percent reduction of HCl and HCN, 95 percent reduction of HCN and TDI, and banning the flame lamination of chlorinated fire retardant foam. We rejected the first two options as unreasonably costly with respect to the incremental emission reduction that would be achieved ($9,700 per ton for the first option and $70,300 per ton for the second option). We rejected the third option as technically infeasible because no alternative fire retardant has been identified that would be adequate and appropriate for all flame lamination applications in which fire retardant foam is required. Discussions with industry suggest that alternative materials could present product quality issues and result in products that do not meet product specifications. We have received no further data or information which would lead to the selection of a different MACT for existing flame lamination sources. Therefore, we have not changed the emission limitation for existing flame lamination sources.
V. What Are the Environmental, Cost, and Economic Impacts of the Final Rule?

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 permissible exposure limit (PEL) for methylene chloride. Therefore, we do not expect any decreases from this subcategory resulting from the NESHAP. Costs should be minimal as well, as most sources will already be maintaining the necessary records in order to comply with OSHA regulations regarding availability of MSDS.

We estimated baseline emissions for flame laminators from data obtained from individual facilities, as well as from State agencies to which facilities reported their annual emissions. Where reported emissions were 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).

Our estimates of nationwide baseline emissions from all existing facilities in 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 promulgated any emissions limitations for existing flame lamination sources; therefore, we do not expect any emissions reductions from the baseline. However, the 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.

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. Our estimate of the annual cost to treat this wastewater is less than $250 per year. We do not expect that there will be any significant adverse nonair health, environmental, or energy impacts associated with the NESHAP for flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations.

There will be no capital costs for loop slitter adhesive users and existing flame laminators because the final rule states that these sources are only 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 NESHAP. That source would face capital costs of approximately $65,000 associated with installation of a control device (e.g., scrubber) and monitoring equipment. We estimate that the average annualized cost for that source would be approximately $63,000 per year, including annualized capital costs for a control device and monitoring equipment; labor costs associated with monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements; and the operation and maintenance of the required control equipment.

In summary, we do not expect any emissions reductions from existing foam fabrication sources, and we estimate HAP emission reductions of 6.5 tpy from the single new flame lamination source we assume will be constructed during the three years following the promulgation of this rule. The total annualized cost of the final rule has been estimated at $64,000, including $63,000 annually for the single new flame lamination facility subject to the provisions of the final rule, and additional onetime labor costs for existing facilities to read the rule. Given that only one source will need to install new controls as a result of the rule, and cost of control is a very small portion of industry revenues, we consider the economic impacts associated with the final rule to be minimal.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. 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.

It has been determined that the final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the final rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2027.02), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at ``auby.susan@epa.gov,'' or by calling (202) 5661672. A copy may also be downloaded from the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. [[Page 18068]]

The information requirements are based on notifications, records, and reports required by the 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 under 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 will be safeguarded according to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.

According to the ICR, the total 3year monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection is 3,634 labor hours, and the annual average burden is 1,211 labor hours. The total annualized cost of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping is approximately $54,124. The labor cost over the 3year 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 onetime 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 purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search existing 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. The OMB control number(s) for the information collection requirements in the final rule will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR part 9 or 48 CFR chapter 15 in a subsequent Federal Register document after OMB approves the ICR.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business according to the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by NAICS code (a maximum of 500 employees for the polyurethane foam fabrication industry); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that one of approximately 48 affected sources is a small entity, and that the impact will consist primarily of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 1044, 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 generally must prepare a written statement, including costbenefit 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 an EPA 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 costeffective, 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 with other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome alternative if we publish 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, we 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 the final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The total annualized cost of the final rule has been estimated at $64,000. This figure includes the $63,000 annually for the single new flame lamination facility subject to the provisions of the final rule, and additional labor costs for existing facilities. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no regulatory requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132Federalism

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'' are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.''

The final rule does not have federalism implications. It 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
[[Page 18069]]
Executive Order 13132. The standards apply only to flexible polyurethane foam fabricators and do not preexempt States from adopting more stringent standards or otherwise regulate State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.

Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials in developing the final rule. No concerns were raised by these officials during this consultation.
F. Executive Order 13175Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''

The final 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. This is because no tribal governments own or operate a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045Protection 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 EPA has 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 rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives that we considered.

The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health and safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The final 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA cites in the final rule the EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 4, 26A, 311, and any method to measure hydrogen cyanide from flame lamination sources (validated with EPA Method 301). 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, 311, and a method to measure hydrogen cyanide. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket (OAR20020080 or A 200043) for the final rule.

Five voluntary consensus standards: ASTM D197991, ASTM D343289, ASTM D474787, ASTM D482793, and ASTM PS994 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311.

The search for emission measurement procedures identified seven voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the final rule. The EPA determined that five of these seven standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA will not adopt these standards today. The reasons for this determination for the five methods are in the docket.

The following two voluntary consensus standards identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of this rulemaking because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.

Sections 63.8800 and 63.8802 and Table 3 to subpart MMMMM list the EPA testing methods included in the final rule. Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 63.8(f), a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective on April 14, 2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, [[Page 18070]]
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Dated: February 28, 2003.
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 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: Sec.
Subpart MMMMMNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations What This Subpart Covers
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 limitation for loop slitter adhesive use?
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?
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 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63Operating Limits for
New or Reconstructed Flame Lamination Affected Sources
Table 3 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63Performance Test
Requirements for New or Reconstructed Flame Lamination Affected Sources
Table 4 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63Initial Compliance With Emission Limits
Table 5 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63Continuous Compliance with Emission Limits and Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63Requirements for Reports Table 7 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63Applicability 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 HAPbased adhesives at any time on or after April 14, 2003.
(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 HAPbased 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 facility, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
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 paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 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 HAPbased 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 April 14, 2003, then you must comply with the emission standards for new or reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than April 14, 2003.
(2) If you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after April 14, 2003, then you must comply with the emission standards for new or
[[Page 18071]]
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 April 14, 2003.
(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 have data on hand beginning on the compliance date specified in paragraph (b) of this section as necessary to demonstrate that your adhesives are not HAPbased. The types of data necessary are described in Sec. Sec. 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 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 sitespecific monitori

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local regulatory agency representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. For information concerning analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Ms. Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (C50404), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number (919) 5415607; fax number (919) 5410942; electronic mail address: noell.maria@epa.gov.