[Federal Register: July 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 46289-46293]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jy02-14]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7215-8]
RIN 2060-AH68

 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Generic 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to amend the ``generic'' 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to clarify the 
agency's intent concerning dry spinning spandex production processes. 
The national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 
for the Spandex Production source category, along with the NESHAP for 
three other source categories, are being included in the Generic MACT 
rule in this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: The direct final rule will be effective on September 25, 2002 
without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are 
received by August 12, 2002, or by August 26, 2002 if a public hearing 
is requested. See the proposed rule in this issue of the Federal 
Register for information on the hearing. If we receive timely adverse 
comments, we will withdraw this direct final rule and take final action 
pursuant to the proposed rule.

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-98-25, 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-98-25, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC 20460. The EPA 
requests that a separate copy of each public comment be sent to the 
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 
Comments may

[[Page 46290]]

also be submitted electronically by following the instructions provided 
in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket. Docket No. A-98-25 contains supporting information used in 
developing the NESHAP. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elaine Manning, Waste and Chemical 
Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (Mailcode C43903), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-5499, electronic mail (e-mail) address: 
manning.elaine@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by e-mail to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be 
submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and 
encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 
file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must 
note the docket number A-98-25. 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. Elaine Manning, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Mailcode C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711. 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 EPA, the information may be made available to the public 
without further notice to the commenter.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the 
administrative record compiled by EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the 
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the 
Clean Air Act (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.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this action will also be available through the 
WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the 
EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for 
newly proposed or promulgated rules: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The 
TTN at EPA's web site provides information and technology exchange in 
various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding 
the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. The regulated category and entities affected by 
this action include:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                     NAICS codes   SIC codes       Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................       325222         2824  Producers of spandex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers likely to be interested in the revisions to the 
regulation affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, 
company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you 
should carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in 
Sec. 63.1104 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of these amendments to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of this direct final rule is available only by filing a petition 
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by 
September 10, 2002. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to this direct final rule that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Why are we publishing these amendments as a direct final rule?
II. What amendments are we making to the NESHAP for spandex 
production?
III. What are the 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 for 
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
    I. Congressional Review Act
    J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. Why Are We Publishing These Amendments as a Direct Final Rule?

    The EPA received several comments on the proposed standards for 
spandex production. One commenter was concerned that because the dry 
spinning spandex production process was not mentioned in the proposal, 
an interpretation could be made that EPA failed to make any decision 
concerning a MACT standard for this group of sources, and as a result 
these facilities would be subject to a case-by-case MACT determination 
under CAA section 112(j). Prior to proposal, we evaluated HAP emissions 
from dry spinning spandex production and determined that adoption of 
MACT standards requiring additional emissions reductions for these 
facilities is not necessary or appropriate. Our

[[Page 46291]]

silence concerning these facilities in the proposal was intended to 
reflect this conclusion.
    However, we agree with the commenter that our silence in the 
proposal regarding the dry spinning production process might be 
interpreted as a failure to specifically address the need for standards 
governing emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from these 
facilities and, thereby, trigger the case-by-case determinations 
required by the ``hammer'' provision in CAA section 112(j). Since we 
did not explicitly state our decision not to adopt any standards for 
these sources or describe our rationale for that decision in the 
proposed rule, we have determined that we should supplement our 
proposal. However, since we do not expect our decision that no MACT 
standards are necessary for spandex dry spinning facilities to be 
controversial, and we do not anticipate any adverse comments concerning 
our decision, we have determined that it is appropriate to effectuate 
this decision through a direct final rule. This assures that any 
ambiguity which might otherwise exist concerning our intention to adopt 
MACT requirements for these facilities will be resolved in a timely 
manner.
    If any adverse comment is received concerning our decision not to 
adopt MACT standards for spandex dry spinning facilities, we will 
withdraw this direct final rule. In the ``Proposed Rules'' section of 
this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposal for our decision not to adopt 
MACT standards for these facilities in the event we receive any adverse 
comment. In that case, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal notice 
before the effective date of this direct final rule and will take final 
action concerning the proposal after considering the comments received.

II. What Amendments Are We Making to the NESHAP for Spandex 
Production?

    During the rule development, we investigated emissions from dry 
spinning spandex production processes (comparing the emissions to the 
reaction spinning process) and made the following findings.
    While dry and reaction spinning processes have many similarities, 
there are significant differences in HAP emissions and controls between 
the processes. The dry and reaction spinning processes are similar in 
their use of reactants and process chemistry. Both processes involve 
the same basic process steps, including production of prepolymer, 
production of polymer, extrusion of fibers, and drying of fibers. 
However, a major process difference that affects the amount of HAP 
emissions from the dry spinning process is the type of solvent used in 
the production. In the dry spinning production process, non-HAP 
solvents are used as opposed to HAP-containing solvents used in the 
reaction spinning process. The estimated total HAP from the three dry 
spinning production facilities is approximately 4.1 megagrams per year 
(mg/yr) (4.5 tons per year (tpy)) whereas the two reaction spinning 
processes emit 303 mg/yr (334 tpy).
    Although the dry spinning production process does not use HAP 
solvents, small amounts of organic HAP are used and generated. The HAP 
that is produced in the dry spinning process is formaldehyde. 
Formaldehyde is generated as a byproduct of heating the dimethyl 
acetamide in the spin cells and is emitted from the process vent along 
with the non-HAP solvent. None of the existing dry spinning production 
facilities have controls in place for formaldehyde emissions. 
Therefore, the floor for dry spinning production process vents is no 
control. A beyond-the-floor analysis (development of a regulatory 
option and analysis of the costs associated with the option) was 
performed on the HAP emissions from the dry spinning production 
process. The flow rates for process vent streams from the dry spinning 
production process are large and the concentration of formaldehyde is 
low. The total annual cost to control these emissions would be 
approximately $49 million per year, or $12 million per ton of 
formaldehyde controlled. This is an unreasonable cost to go beyond the 
floor. Controlling this stream would also use significant amounts of 
energy. We do not know of a way to change the process or the feeds to 
reduce the HAP emissions. We have, therefore, decided not to select the 
beyond-the-floor regulatory option.
    The other source of HAP emissions from dry spinning production 
sources is methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) storage. The MDI is 
one of the raw materials used in the spandex production process and has 
a very low volatility. Thus, we would expect emissions of MDI from the 
storage tanks to also be very low, perhaps even undetectable. All MDI 
storage tanks at dry spinning spandex production facilities are fixed-
roof tanks. Additionally, one facility has carbon canisters on the 
vents from the MDI storage tanks (although the control efficiency of 
the canisters cannot be determined). We estimate that the combined 
annual MDI emissions from the storage tanks at all three dry spinning 
facilities do not exceed 500 pounds. We do not believe that requiring 
additional controls on these storage tanks would yield any meaningful 
emission reductions. This conclusion is corroborated by our 
determination that all of the MDI storage tanks at dry spinning 
production facilities are below the size and vapor pressure 
requirements for control under all existing MACT standards.
    Based on the above analysis, we have concluded that the MACT floor 
for spandex dry spinning facilities is no control and that adoption of 
additional emission controls is not warranted. Therefore, we determined 
that it is not necessary or appropriate to promulgate any MACT 
requirements for these facilities.

III. What Are the Administrative Requirements?

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to 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 obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that these amendments do not constitute a ``significant 
regulatory action'' because they do not meet any of the above criteria. 
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under 
Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to

[[Page 46292]]

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.''
    These rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because State and 
local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be 
subject to these amendments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order do not apply.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officals in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    These rule amendments do not have tribal implications. They will 
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, or on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No 
tribal governments own or operate spandex production facilities. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these rule amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    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. These rule amendments are 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on 
technology performance, not health or safety risks. Furthermore, these 
rule amendments have been determined not to be ``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, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least-costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that these rule amendments do 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. Today's amendments do not add new 
requirements that would increase the costs of the rule. Thus, these 
rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that these rule 
amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no 
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon 
them. Therefore, these rule amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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 prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in 
the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 325411 
or 325412 that has as many as 750 employees; (2) a small business in 
NAICS code 325199 that has as many as 1,000 employees; (3) 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 (4) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the rule amendments on 
small entities, the EPA has determined

[[Page 46293]]

that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The EPA has determined that none 
of the small entities will experience a significant impact because the 
amendments impose no additional regulatory requirements on owners or 
operators of affected sources.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
However, an information collection request (ICR) has been submitted for 
approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq., for the rule which is amended by today's direct final rule. An 
ICR document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1983.02) and a copy may 
be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U.S. EPA, Office of 
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    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.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs all Federal 
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards instead of government-
unique standards in their regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material 
specifications, test methods, sampling and analytical procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by one or more 
voluntary consensus bodies. Examples of organizations generally 
regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 
NTTAA requires Federal agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This direct final rule does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added 
by the SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 
effect, the agency adopting 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 direct final 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 this rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This direct final rule is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This direct final rule 
will be effective on September 25, 2002.

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

    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, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart YY--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.1103 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i) introductory text;
    b. Adding paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(C); and
    c. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions of dry spinning and 
reaction spinning to paragraph (h)(2).
    The revision and additions are to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1103  Source category-specific applicability, definitions, and 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Affected source. For the spandex production (as defined in 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section) source category, the affected source 
shall comprise all emission points listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) 
through (C) of this section that are associated with a spandex 
production process unit located at a major source, as defined in 
section 112(a) of the Act.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) Emission points listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) 
of this section that are associated with a dry spinning spandex 
production process unit.
* * * * *
    (2) Definitions.
    Dry spinning means a fiber-forming process where prepolymer is 
reacted with a chain-extender to generate polymer prior to spinning; 
the polymer is dissolved in a solvent and is extruded into a cell of 
hot gases for fiber formation.
* * * * *
    Reaction spinning means a fiber-forming process where prepolymer is 
extruded into a spin bath that contains a chain-extender; the chemical 
reaction to make polymer occurs simultaneously with extrusion/fiber 
formation.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-12842 Filed 7-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P