National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, 48073-48090 [2014-18734]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48073-48090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18734]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510; FRL-9914-30-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR58


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual 
Risk and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam (FPUF) Production 
source category regulated under national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, the EPA is finalizing 
amendments to correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to 
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM); 
add requirements for reporting of performance testing through the 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); clarify the leak detection methods 
allowed for diisocyanate storage vessels at slabstock foam production 
facilities; and revise the rule to add a schedule for delay of leak 
repairs for valves and connectors.

DATES: Effective Date: This final action is effective on August 15, 
2014. Compliance Dates: For the revised SSM requirements and electronic 
reporting requirements for existing FPUF Production facilities is 
August 15, 2014.
    For the new requirements prohibiting the use of HAP ABAs for 
existing slabstock FPUF Production facilities is 90 days from the 
effective date of the promulgated standards, November 13, 2014.
    New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon 
the effective date of the standard, August 15, 2014, or upon startup, 
whichever is later.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room 
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Kaye Whitfield, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2509; fax number: (919) 541-5450; 
and email address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For specific information 
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, 
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office and Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: 
sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the 
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. Scott Throwe, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA); telephone number: (202) 
564-7013; and email address: throwe.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

ABA auxiliary blowing agent
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FPUF flexible polyurethane foam
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget

[[Page 48074]]

PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SBA Small Business Administration
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
TOSHI total organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Background Information. On November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66108), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the FPUF Production NESHAP based on our RTR, and 
we also proposed to amend provisions related to emissions during 
periods of SSM, to add requirements for electronic reporting of 
performance testing, and to clarify certain rule requirements. In this 
action, we are finalizing revisions to the rule. We summarize some of 
the comments we received regarding the proposed rule and provide our 
responses in this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the 
proposal not presented in the preamble, and the EPA's responses to 
those comments are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510. A 
``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that reflects how 
the current FPUF NESHAP is being revised is available in the docket for 
this action.
    Organization of this Document. We provide the following outline to 
assist in locating information in the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the FPUF Production source category and how do the 
NESHAP promulgated on October 7, 1998 regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What changes have been made to the standards since 
promulgation of the NESHAP for the FPUF Production source category, 
and what changes did we propose in our November 4, 2013 RTR 
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the FPUF Production source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the FPUF Production source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction?
    D. What are the final rule amendments for submission of 
performance test data to the EPA?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions 
to the FPUF Production NESHAP?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the FPUF Production source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the FPUF Production Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the FPUF Production Source Category
    C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions for the FPUF 
Production Source Category
    D. Electronic Reporting of Performance Test Data Provisions for 
the FPUF Production Source Category
    E. Clarifications to the FPUF Production NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

  Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Category Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       NESHAP and source category         NAICS code \a\   MACT code \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production...          326150            1314
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will be available on the World Wide Web through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA 
Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action on the 
project Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/foam/foampg.html. The 
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 
air pollution control.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web page at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by October 14, 2014. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in

[[Page 48075]]

any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule, ``[i]f the 
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and 
the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, 
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or any combination of HAP at a 
rate of 25 tpy or more. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques that 
reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process 
changes, substitution of materials or other modifications; enclose 
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat 
HAP when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions 
point; and/or are design, equipment, work practice or operational 
standards.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA 
section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 78 FR 66108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of 
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 
1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing 
technology-based standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then 
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual 
risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the FPUF Production source category and how do the NESHAP 
promulgated on October 7, 1998 regulate its HAP emissions?

    The EPA promulgated the FPUF Production NESHAP on October 7, 1998 
(63 FR 53979). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
III. The FPUF Production industry consists of facilities that produce 
slabstock or molded flexible polyurethane foam or rebond foam. The 
source category covered by these MACT standards currently includes 12 
facilities.
    The FPUF Production NESHAP contains requirements specific to each 
of the three types of foam production processes. For slabstock foam 
production, these standards include diisocyanate and HAP auxiliary 
blowing agent (ABA) emissions reduction requirements. For molded and 
rebond foam production, these standards prohibit the use of HAP in mold 
release agents and equipment cleaners, except in very limited 
circumstances.

C. What changes have been made to the standards since promulgation of 
the NESHAP for the FPUF Production source category, and what changes 
did we propose in our November 4, 2013 RTR proposal?

    No changes have been made to the FPUF Production NESHAP since the 
promulgation of the NESHAP on October 7, 1998. On November 4, 2013, the 
EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register for the FPUF 
Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart III, proposing revisions to 
the MACT based on the RTR analyses and proposing additional revisions. 
We proposed the following revisions:
     A prohibition of the use of HAP-based ABAs for slabstock 
foam production facilities;
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM, including the addition of provisions for an affirmative 
defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards that 
are caused by malfunctions;
     The addition of requirements for reporting of performance 
testing through the ERT;
     Clarifications to the leak detection methods allowed for 
diisocyanate

[[Page 48076]]

storage vessels at slabstock foam production facilities; and
     Addition of a schedule for delay of leak repairs for 
valves and connectors.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    Today's action finalizes the EPA's determinations for the FPUF 
Production source category pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA 
section 112, and amends the FPUF Production NESHAP based on those 
determinations. With one exception, today's action also finalizes the 
changes to the NESHAP described in section II.C. of the preamble. For 
the reasons explained in section IV.C of the preamble, we are not 
including the proposed affirmative defense provisions in the final 
rule. In the following subsections, we introduce and summarize the 
final amendments to the FPUF Production NESHAP.
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we are revising the FPUF Production 
NESHAP to include a prohibition of the use of HAP or HAP-based products 
as ABAs for all slabstock FPUF Production operations. We evaluated the 
costs, emissions reductions, energy implications and cost effectiveness 
of this standard and determined that this measure is cost effective and 
technically feasible and will provide the public with an ample margin 
of safety from exposure to emissions from the FPUF Production source 
category.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the FPUF Production source category?

    We identified one development in practices, processes or control 
technologies that we determined to be cost-effective. Therefore, to 
satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the 
MACT standards to include that development. Specifically, as we 
proposed, we are finalizing a prohibition of the use of HAP or HAP-
based products as ABAs for all slabstock FPUF Production operations. As 
noted in section III.A of the preamble, we are concurrently 
promulgating this HAP and HAP-based ABA prohibition under section 
112(f)(2) of the CAA to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction?

    We are finalizing changes to the FPUF Production NESHAP to 
eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 
EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. 
Table 2 of the General Provisions (applicability table) is being 
revised to change several of the references related to requirements 
that apply during periods of SSM. We also eliminated or revised certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM 
exemption. The EPA also made changes to the rule to remove or modify 
inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the absence of the 
SSM exemption. We determined that facilities in this source category 
can meet the applicable emission standards at all times, including 
periods of startup and shutdown, in compliance with the current MACT 
standards; therefore, the EPA made the determination that no additional 
standards are needed to address emissions during these periods.
    For the reasons explained in section IV.C of the preamble, we are 
not including the proposed affirmative defense provisions in the final 
rule.

D. What are the final rule amendments for submission of performance 
test data to the EPA?

    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility, we are finalizing changes to the FPUF Production NESHAP 
to require owners and operators of FPUF Production facilities to submit 
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through 
an electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. This 
requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA 
does not require any additional performance testing and applies only to 
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported 
by the ERT.

E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    Today's rule also finalizes clarifications to the leak detection 
methods allowed for diisocyanate storage vessels at slabstock foam 
production facilities. During unloading events at these facilities, the 
current requirements allow the vapor return line to be inspected for 
leaks using visual, audible or any other detection method. Today, the 
EPA is clarifying that ``any other detection method'' must be an 
instrumental detection method.
    We are also finalizing a revision to the requirements for delay of 
leak repairs for valves and connectors in diisocyanate service. This 
revision requires equipment leaks from valves and connectors that are 
on a delay of repair schedule to have repairs completed as soon as 
practicable, but not later than 6 months after the leak is detected.

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the revisions to the 
FPUF Production NESHAP?

    The revisions to the FPUF Production NESHAP being promulgated in 
this action are effective on August 15, 2014.
    The compliance date for the revised SSM requirements and electronic 
reporting requirements for existing FPUF Production facilities is 
August 15, 2014. The compliance date for the new requirements 
prohibiting the use of HAP ABAs for existing slabstock FPUF Production 
facilities is 90 days from the effective date of the promulgated 
standards, November 13, 2014.
    New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon 
the effective date of the standard, August 15, 2014, or upon startup, 
whichever is later.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the FPUF Production source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the 
final decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and 
responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the FPUF Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the FPUF 
Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review 
and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed 
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in 
the November 4, 2013, proposed rule for the FPUF Production NESHAP (78 
FR 66108). The results of the risk assessment are presented briefly 
below in Table 2, and in more detail in the residual risk document: 
Final Residual Risk Assessment for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production Source Category, which is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking. Based on actual emissions for the FPUF Production source 
category, the maximum individual risk (MIR) was estimated to be up to 
0.7-in-1 million, the maximum chronic non-cancer total organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI) value was estimated to be up to 0.9, and the 
maximum off-site acute hazard quotient (HQ) value was estimated to be 
up to 0.9. The total estimated national

[[Page 48077]]

cancer incidence from these facilities based on actual emission levels 
was 0.00004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 25,000 
years. Based on MACT-allowable emissions for the FPUF Production source 
category, the MIR was estimated to be up to 5-in-1 million, the maximum 
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value was estimated to be up to 0.9, and the 
maximum off-site acute HQ value was estimated to be up to 4. The total 
estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based on 
MACT-allowable emission levels was 0.0004 excess cancer cases per year, 
or one case in every 2,500 years. We also found there were no 
persistent and bio-accumulative HAP (PB-HAP) or any of the seven 
``environmental HAP'' emitted by facilities in this source category. We 
weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks to public health 
from the FPUF Production source category are acceptable.

                                    Table 2--Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum        Estimated       Estimated
                                                              individual     population at   annual cancer      Maximum
              Emissions level                  Number of      cancer risk   increased risk     incidence     chronic non-   Maximum screening acute non-
                                            facilities \1\  (in 1 million)  of cancer >= 1-   (cases per     cancer TOSHI           cancer HQ \4\
                                                                  \2\        in-1 Million        year)            \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Emissions Level....................              13             0.7               0         0.00004             0.9  HQERPG	1 = 0.9.
MACT- Allowable Emissions Level...........              13               5             700          0.0004             0.9  HQREL = 4
                                                                                                                            HQERPG	1 = 0.9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the FPUF Production source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    We then considered whether the FPUF Production NESHAP provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. In considering whether the standards should be 
tightened, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for 
our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility and other relevant factors related to each of 
the ``developments in practices, processes and control technologies'' 
identified under our technology review. Based on that analysis, we 
proposed to prohibit the use of HAP and HAP-based ABAs at slabstock 
foam production facilities, which were shown to contribute nearly 100 
percent to the maximum individual cancer risks at the MACT-allowable 
emissions level for this source category. Furthermore, we proposed that 
additional HAP emissions controls for FPUF production diisocyanate 
storage vessels and diisocyanate equipment leaks are not necessary to 
provide an ample margin of safety.
2. How did the risk review change for the FPUF Production source 
category since the proposed rule?
    Information received from a commenter on the proposed rule 
indicates that one facility included in the FPUF Production dataset at 
proposal is not a major source of HAP and is not subject to the FPUF 
Production NESHAP. Based on this information, we determined that the 
modeling dataset for the FPUF Production source category does not need 
to include this facility. Removing this facility from the dataset and 
performing additional modeling would result in slightly decreased 
emissions and risks from the source category. This change would not 
affect our decisions regarding risk acceptability or ample margin of 
safety; thus, we determined that additional modeling to include this 
revision is not necessary.
    We revised the risk assessment documentation for one aspect of the 
analysis which was not explained previously. To estimate ambient 
concentrations for evaluating long-term exposures, the Human Exposure 
Model (HEM) uses the geographic centroids of census blocks as 
dispersion model receptors. The census block centroids are generally 
good surrogates for where people live within a census block; however, 
risk estimates based on such centroids can be underestimated for those 
residences nearer to a facility than the centroid and overestimated for 
those residences farther from the facility than the centroid. For this 
source category, we added several receptors for census blocks where the 
centroid location was not representative of the residential locations. 
We revised the risk assessment documentation to provide additional 
information on census block centroid changes in Appendix 7 of the Final 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 
Source Category document, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
    We also revised the proximity analysis, which identifies any 
overrepresentation of minority, low income or indigenous populations 
near facilities in the source category, to add a map of the facilities 
in the source category, and to remove a previously included facility 
that is not part of the source category. The results of this analysis 
are presented in the section of this preamble titled, ``Executive Order 
12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low-Income Populations.''
3. What comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are our 
responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the FPUF Production source 
category risk review. The following is a summary of one of those 
comments and our response. Other comments received and our responses to 
those comments can be found in the Comment Summary and Response 
document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0510).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA refused to strengthen 
the existing standards for storage vessels and equipment leaks based 
purely on its cost-benefit analysis. The commenter declared that the 
EPA's approach considered only the cost per ton of HAP emission 
reduction, without assessing relevant factors such as: The individual 
HAP emitted and the impact those HAP can have at a level below 1 ton; 
how many people would be affected by the potential emission reductions; 
where they live and whether they are in a

[[Page 48078]]

community containing multiple HAP sources; or whether they face a 
longstanding environmental justice impact. The commenter further stated 
that the EPA also did not consider or address whether the standards 
would provide any ``margin of safety'' to protect public health, much 
less whether the margin is ``ample.'' Thus, the commenter claims the 
EPA ignored and violated section 112(f)(2) of the CAA.
    Response: We disagree with the comment that the EPA based its 
decision under CAA section 112(f) that it was not necessary to tighten 
the FPUF Production standards for storage vessels and equipment leaks 
only on a cost-benefit analysis. To address the requirements of CAA 
section 112(f)(2) for the FPUF Production source category, we performed 
a risk assessment, and based on the results of that assessment, made a 
determination of whether emissions remaining after implementation of 
the existing standards result in risks that are acceptable. We did not 
consider costs as part of that analysis. For purposes of determining 
whether the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, we assessed the additional risk reductions that 
would result from tightening the standards (see 78 FR 66123-66124). 
Specifically, we investigated the possibility of requiring additional 
emissions controls for diisocyanate storage vessels and equipment leaks 
at slabstock production facilities and determined that these control 
options would not achieve a reduction in the maximum individual cancer 
risks or any of the other risk metrics. In addition to looking at the 
effect of these controls on risk, we also determined that they would 
result in very low emissions reductions and would be expensive to 
implement (see 78 FR 66123-66124). Based on the analysis of the 
emission and risk reductions and the costs, we proposed (and are 
determining in this final rule) that it is not necessary to modify the 
existing standards to provide an ample margin of safety.
    Further, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that we did not 
assess the individual HAP emitted or the impact those HAP can have at a 
level below 1 tpy. As noted at proposal (see 78 FR 66122), we assessed 
the risks considering all individual HAP emissions, regardless of 
emission level, from the FPUF Production source category. We also 
assessed the impact that the potential emission control options would 
have on the level of emissions of the individual HAP and on the risks 
associated with those emissions.
    Regarding the comment that the EPA should consider whether people 
live in a community containing multiple HAP sources, we note that 
background risks and contributions to risk from sources outside the 
facilities under review were not considered in the ample margin of 
safety determination for this source category, mainly because of the 
significant uncertainties associated with emissions estimates for such 
sources (see 78 FR 66121). Our approach here is consistent with the 
approach we took regarding this issue in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP 
(HON) RTR, which the court upheld in the face of claims that the EPA 
had not adequately considered background (NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 
(D.C. Cir. 2008)).
    With regard to the comment concerning longstanding environmental 
justice impacts, we refer to the preamble of the proposed rule 
regarding how we examine environmental justice concerns generally, as 
well as in this specific rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the risk review?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that 
the FPUF Production NESHAP, as modified to include the HAP and HAP-
based ABA prohibition described above, will provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental 
effect. Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our 
determinations regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety 
have changed. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are 
revising the FPUF Production NESHAP to prohibit the use of HAP and HAP-
based ABAs at slabstock foam production facilities to provide an ample 
margin of safety.

B. Technology Review for the FPUF Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(6) for the FPUF 
Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes and control technologies for the emission sources 
in the FPUF Production source category. At proposal, we identified 
developments in practices, processes or control technologies for 
slabstock production lines, diisocyanate storage vessels and equipment 
leaks.
    For slabstock production facilities, the current MACT standards 
allow limited use of HAP-based ABAs in the slabstock foam production 
line, while prohibiting the use of HAP-based products in equipment 
cleaners, except at facilities operating under the provisions for a 
source-wide emission limit for a single HAP ABA. Prohibiting the use of 
HAP-based ABAs and HAP-based equipment cleaners at slabstock foam 
production facilities was identified at proposal as a development in 
practices and/or processes that could reduce HAP emissions from the 
slabstock foam production facilities, principally from the foam 
production line. Data available to the EPA showed that none of the 
facilities subject to the FPUF Production NESHAP were using any HAP 
ABAs, or ABAs containing HAP (i.e., HAP-based ABAs). Therefore, we 
concluded that there would be no cost associated with codifying a 
prohibition on the use of HAP or HAP-based ABAs, which is consistent 
with current industry practice.
    For diisocyanate storage vessels, two potential control 
technologies were identified at proposal, regenerative and recuperative 
thermal oxidizers, which could increase the emissions capture and 
control efficiency from 95 percent to 98 percent for those tanks that 
are currently controlled with a carbon adsorption system. We estimated 
an additional emission reduction of 0.0026 tpy of diisocyanate would be 
associated with this increase in emissions control efficiency, and the 
estimated costs would be $124 million and $270 million per ton of HAP 
reduced for regenerative and recuperative thermal oxidizers, 
respectively.
    For equipment leaks, two potential developments in practices, 
processes or control technologies were identified at proposal: use of 
``leakless'' valves in diisocyanate service at slabstock facilities and 
implementation of an enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR) program 
for diisocyanate equipment leaks at slabstock foam production 
facilities.
    ``Leakless'' valves are in place in some facilities outside the 
FPUF Production source category, particularly oil refineries. We 
analyzed the costs associated with requiring this technology for valves 
in diisocyanate service in the FPUF Production source category using 
cost estimates developed for the synthetic organic chemical 
manufacturing industry. Nationwide annual costs were estimated to be 
$310,000/yr, with total capital investments of $2,260,000. Emission 
reductions were estimated to be approximately 1 tpy, resulting in a 
cost

[[Page 48079]]

effectiveness of $305,000/ton HAP reduction.
    At proposal, we evaluated an enhanced LDAR program for equipment in 
diisocyanate service at slabstock foam production facilities that would 
require instrumental monitoring, employing Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, and we considered two sets of leak definitions for this 
program. For both sets of leak definitions, nationwide total annual 
costs are estimated to be approximately $28,200/yr, with total capital 
investments of approximately $32,400. Reduction of HAP emissions are 
estimated to be approximately 0.38 tpy, resulting in a cost 
effectiveness of approximately $74,000/ton HAP reduction.
    In addition to instrumental monitoring, another aspect of an 
enhanced LDAR program was investigated at proposal. The current MACT 
standards allow leak repairs to be delayed under certain circumstances. 
Limits on the number of leaking components awaiting repair were 
identified as a development in a practice that could reduce 
diisocyanate emissions from equipment leaks as part of an enhanced LDAR 
program. We estimate the costs of requirements that would limit the 
number of leaking equipment components awaiting repair, require mass 
emission testing for leaking valves and require valves with high leak 
rates to be repaired within 7 days. Nationwide annual costs are 
estimated to be $19,300/yr, with no capital investments required. 
Emission reductions are estimated to be 0.08 tpy, resulting in a cost 
effectiveness of $233,800 per ton of HAP reduction for equipment in 
diisocyanate service at slabstock facilities.
    Based on the costs and the emission reductions that would be 
achieved with the identified developments, we proposed that it was 
necessary to revise the MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) 
to prohibit the use of HAP and HAP-based ABAs at slabstock foam 
production facilities, and we proposed that it was not necessary to 
revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require 
the identified developments in practices, processes or control 
technologies for diisocyanate storage vessels or equipment leaks. More 
information concerning our technology review can be found in the 
memorandum titled, Technology Review and Cost Impacts for the Proposed 
Amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Source 
Category, which is available in the docket and in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, 78 FR at 66108 to 66138.
2. How did the technology review change for the FPUF Production source 
category?
    We have not changed any aspects of our technology review since the 
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    The following is a summary of the comments received regarding the 
FPUF Production source category technology review and our responses to 
these comments.
    Comment: One commenter claims the EPA did not fulfill the letter or 
purpose of CAA section 112(d)(6) to ensure that the EPA updates 
standards when developments have occurred that would create stronger 
protection for public health. Another commenter also believes this rule 
could be more stringent in order to encourage advancement in technology 
to reduce HAP emissions and noted that the EPA's cost-benefit analysis 
of control technologies considered does not foster growth of more 
effective or less expensive technologies.
    Response: CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to ``review, and 
revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated 
under this section no less often than every 8 years.'' The EPA retains 
significant discretion in balancing relevant factors in determining 
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the existing technology-based 
MACT standards. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 378 (D.C. 
Cir. 2003) (under CAA section 202(l)(2), the EPA is to consider factors 
beyond pure technological capability, and the statute does not direct 
how the EPA should weigh such factors). In reviewing standards 
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), and determining 
whether revising them is ``necessary'' under section 112(d)(6), the EPA 
may take into consideration cost and feasibility when evaluating 
developments in practices, processes and control technologies.
    The commenter does not specifically indicate what action the EPA 
should take to ``foster growth of more effective or less expensive 
technologies.'' To the extent the commenter is suggesting that the EPA 
require controls under CAA section 112(d)(6) that it has concluded are 
not cost effective at this time in the hope that it will spur action to 
find ways to reduce cost, we disagree that such a result is required by 
CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Comment: One commenter stated that by not updating the leak 
definitions of the rule, the EPA is authorizing an unlimited amount of 
HAP to be emitted, as long as the leaks are below the leak definitions. 
According to the commenter, this violates National Lime Association v. 
EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000), in which the Court held that the 
EPA must set an emission standard to limit all emitted HAP. The 
commenter asserted that the EPA must set emission limits that prohibit 
leaks above specific levels.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the EPA must set 
emission limits that prohibit leaks above a certain level. Under CAA 
section 112, national emission standards must, whenever possible, take 
the format of a numerical emission standard. However, CAA section 
112(h)(2) recognizes two conditions under which the EPA is not required 
to establish a numerical emission limit. These conditions are (1) If 
the pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and 
constructed to emit or capture the pollutant or (2) if the application 
of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and 
economic limitations. If a numerical emission limit cannot be 
established, the EPA may instead establish a design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standard or combination thereof. For equipment 
leak sources, the EPA has determined that equipment leaks meet both of 
these conditions, and it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce 
emission standards. See e.g., 57 FR 62608 (HON)).
    In the 1998 FPUF Production NESHAP, the EPA developed LDAR 
requirements for equipment leaks at slabstock foam production 
facilities, which are primarily work practices. The 1998 FPUF 
Production NESHAP for equipment leaks does not specify numeric leak 
definitions. These standards require an LDAR program that employs 
visual, audible or other methods for detecting leaks. In the technology 
review we conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we investigated 
an option to require an enhanced LDAR program that would require 
instrument monitoring for leaks using EPA Method 21 and numeric leak 
definitions. The costs of an enhanced LDAR program for the FPUF 
Production source category using either of the two analyzed sets of 
leak definitions are estimated to be approximately $28,200/yr, with 
total capital investments of approximately $32,400. Reduction of HAP 
emissions are estimated to be about 0.38 tpy, with a cost effectiveness 
of approximately $74,000/ton HAP

[[Page 48080]]

reduction. Because of the high cost of these controls, we proposed (and 
are determining in this final rule) that it is not necessary to revise 
the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to include the 
enhanced LDAR program.
4. What is our final decision for the technology review?
    For the reasons provided above and in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, we have determined that it is necessary, pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6), to revise the MACT standards to prohibit the use of HAP and 
HAP-based ABAs at slabstock foam production facilities. Also explained 
in the preamble to the proposed rule, there are no estimated costs, 
industry is already complying with this HAP and HAP-based ABA 
prohibition in practice and reductions in allowable emissions will be 
achieved. As noted in section IV.A.3 of the preamble, we are 
promulgating this HAP and HAP-based ABA prohibition concurrently under 
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above and 
in the preamble to the proposed rule, we have determined that it is not 
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the MACT to 
require additional HAP emission controls for FPUF Production 
diisocyanate storage vessels or diisocyanate equipment leaks.

C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions for the FPUF Production 
Source Category

1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the FPUF Production source 
category?
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008),the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under CAA section 
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's 
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed standards in this 
rule that apply at all times. In proposing the standards in this rule, 
the EPA took into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the 
reasons explained below, did not propose alternate standards for those 
periods. Information on periods of startup and shutdown received from 
the facilities in the FPUF Production industry indicated that emissions 
during these periods are the same as during normal operations. The 
primary means of compliance with the standards are through work 
practices and product substitutions, which eliminate the use of HAP, 
and are in place at all times. Therefore, we determined that separate 
standards for periods of startup and shutdown are not necessary.
    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner . . .'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 
as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to 
be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under CAA 
section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar 
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent 
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when 
setting emission standards. As the DC Circuit has recognized, the 
phrase ``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 
12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the 
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies 
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts 
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 
112 requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that 
analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the 
type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations 
of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a 
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels EPA to 
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards 
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types 
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and 
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might 
occur. Therefore, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is 
not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. 
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of 
imperfect scientific information, rather than to 'invest the resources 
to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no 
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can 
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of 
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for 
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 
for specification in advance by regulation.'').
    In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be 
significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source 
operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99 
percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might 
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the 
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut 
down, the source would go from 99 percent control to zero control until 
the control device was repaired. The source's emissions during the 
malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As 
such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the 
annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this 
example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to 
standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent 
than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning 
source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a 
result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA 
section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would 
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the 
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective

[[Page 48081]]

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess 
emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to 
comply with the CAA section 112 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused 
in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 
(definition of malfunction).
    Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action against 
a source for violation of an emission standard, the source can raise 
any and all defenses in that enforcement action, and the federal 
district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The 
same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding 
officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised 
and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. 
Recognizing that even equipment that is properly designed and 
maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can sometimes cause 
a violation of the relevant emission standard, we proposed to add 
provisions for an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations 
of emission standards that are caused by malfunctions. We also proposed 
other regulatory provisions to specify the elements that would be 
necessary to establish this affirmative defense.
    To address the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA's CAA section 112 
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), we proposed to 
revise and add certain provisions to the FPUF Production rule. As 
described in detail below, we proposed to revise the General Provisions 
(Table 2) to change several of the references related to requirements 
that apply during periods of SSM. We also proposed to add the following 
provisions to the FPUF Production rule: (1) The general duty to 
minimize emissions at all times, (2) the requirement for sources to 
comply with the emission limits in the rule at all times, and (3) 
malfunction recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
a. 40 CFR 63.1290(d)(4) General Duty
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)-(2) by adding rows specifically for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and to include a 
``no'' in the second column for the 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) entry. Section 
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of 
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in 
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We proposed instead to 
add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1290(d)(4) that reflects 
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference 
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore the 
language the EPA proposed did not include that language from 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1).
    We also proposed to include a ``no'' in the second column for the 
newly added 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) entry. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 
requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM 
exemption or are redundant of the general duty requirement proposed to 
be added at 40 CFR 63.1290(d)(4).
b. Compliance With Standards
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.6(f) by adding a specific entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 
including a ``no'' in the second column for this entry. The current 
language of 40 CFR 63.6, paragraph (f)(1) exempts sources from non-
opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the court 
in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in section 63.6(f)(1) 
and held that the CAA requires that CAA section 112 standards apply 
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA proposed to revise 
the standards in this rule to apply at all times.
c. 40 CFR 63.1307(h) Recordkeeping
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.10(a)-(b) by adding rows specifically for 40 CFR63.10(a), 
63.10(b)(1), 63.10 b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(xi), 63.10(b)(2)(xii), 63.10(b)(xiii) and 
63.10(b)(2)(xiv) in order to specify changes we proposed to the 
applicability of several of the 40 CFR63.10(b)(2) paragraphs.
    In the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), we proposed to include a 
``no'' in the second column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording 
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA proposed that 
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations would apply 
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions 
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown 
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup 
and shutdown periods. In the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii), we 
proposed to include a ``no'' in the second column. Section 
63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a 
malfunction. The EPA proposed to add such requirements to 40 CFR 
63.1307(h). It is not necessary to cross-reference the General 
Provisions because we proposed specific regulatory text addressing 
recordkeeping for malfunctions in the FPUF Production NESHAP. The 
provision in the General Provisions requires the creation and retention 
of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA 
proposed requirement for 40 CFR 63.1307(h) provides that for any 
failure to meet an applicable standard, the source is required to 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the 
``occurrence.'' The EPA also proposed to add to 40 CFR 63.1307(h) a 
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the 
affected sources or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, 
an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the 
standard for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a 
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of 
such methods would include product loss calculations, mass balance 
calculations, measurements when available or engineering judgment based 
on known process parameters.
    The EPA proposed to require that sources keep records of this 
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the 
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard and to 
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to 
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable 
standard.
    We proposed to include a ``no'' in the second column in the entry 
for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and 63.10(b)(2)(v). When applicable, these 
paragraphs in the General Provisions require sources to record actions 
taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM 
plan. These requirements are not appropriate because SSM plans are not 
(and were not) required by the FPUF Production NESHAP, and the General 
Provisions applicability table referenced these sections in error.

[[Page 48082]]

d. 40 CFR 63.1306(f) Reporting
    We proposed to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(4)-(5) by adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5) and including a ``no'' in the second column for this 40 CFR 
63.10(d)(5) entry. Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. As explained 
above, the EPA proposed to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 
63.1306(f) in place of a cross-reference to the reporting requirements 
in the General Provisions. The proposed requirement for the FPUF 
Production standard does not include periodic SSM reports as stand-
alone reports. Rather, the proposed language requires sources that fail 
to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information 
concerning such events in reports already required under the FPUF 
Production standard--the semiannual report for slabstock affected 
sources and the annual compliance certification for molded and rebond 
affected sources. We describe the content of these proposed reports in 
section IV.C.1.c of the preamble.
    Because we proposed specific recordkeeping requirements in the FPUF 
standard, we also proposed to eliminate the cross reference to section 
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the SSM report format 
and submittal schedule for the General Provisions.
    The proposed rule also eliminated the cross-reference to section 
63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report 
for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet 
an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. These 
requirements are not appropriate because SSM plans are not (and were 
not) required by the FPUF Production NESHAP, and the General Provisions 
applicability table referenced this section in error.
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the FPUF Production source 
category?
    In several prior CAA section 112 rules and in the proposed rule, 
the EPA included an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 
violations caused by malfunctions in an effort to create a system that 
incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, 
inherent in many types of air regulations, to ensure adequate 
compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most 
diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the 
EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement discretion provides 
sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the 
affirmative defense to provide a more formalized approach and more 
regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 
1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case 
enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. 
v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 
formalized approach to consideration of ``upsets beyond the control of 
the permit holder.''). Under the EPA's regulatory affirmative defense 
provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements of the 
affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not be 
assessed. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in one of the EPA's 
CAA Section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir. April 
18, 2014) 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 (vacating affirmative defense 
provisions in a CAA Section 112 rule establishing emission standards 
for Portland cement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked 
authority to establish an affirmative defense for private civil suits 
and held that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty 
amounts in such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. 
Specifically, the Court found: ``As the language of the statute makes 
clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil 
penalties are `appropriate.''' See NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at 
*21 (``[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are 
`appropriate' in a given private civil suit is a job for the courts, 
not EPA.'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The court's reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil judicial 
actions. The Court noted that ``EPA's ability to determine whether 
penalties should be assessed for Clean Air Act violations extends 
only to administrative penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by 
a court.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative 
defense provision in the final rule. As explained above, if a source is 
unable to comply with emissions standards as a result of a malfunction, 
the EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide 
flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as the DC Circuit recognized, in 
an EPA or citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion to 
consider any defense raised and determine whether penalties are 
appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *24 (arguments that 
violations caused by unavoidable technology failures can be made to the 
courts in future civil cases when the issue arises). The same is true 
for the presiding officer in EPA administrative enforcement actions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA's authority 
to establish an affirmative defense to penalties that is available 
in administrative enforcement actions, the EPA is not including such 
an affirmative defense in the final rule. As explained above, such 
an affirmative defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of 
penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in administrative 
proceedings and judicial proceedings should be consistent. CF. CAA 
section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the court to 
take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the proposed revisions to 
the SSM provisions for the FPUF Production source category. The 
following is a summary of one of these comments and our response to 
that comment. Other comments received and our responses to those 
comments can be found in the Comment Summary and Response document 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510).
    Comment: One commenter states that ``EPA is legally required to 
remove all unlawful exemptions from the emission standards that have 
previously existed for SSM and not to set any new such exemptions. The 
agency recognizes this is necessary and that it is important for EPA to 
remove these exemptions in this rulemaking. 78 FR 66,126. EPA is taking 
comment on the requirements it must change to comply with the DC 
Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008).'' The commenter claims that equipment leaks are a kind of 
equipment malfunction and that EPA may not authorize any such leaks, 
because to do so would be in violation of CAA section 302(k) and DC 
Circuit precedent the Sierra Club v. EPA decision. The commenter also 
stated EPA's proposal to not update the leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) requirements is an unlawful authorization of a malfunction 
exemption.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's claim that the types of 
equipment leaks addressed in the FPUF Production NESHAP are 
``malfunctions.'' Equipment leaks typically occur from equipment such 
as valves, transfer pumps and connectors in diisocyanate service. 40 
CFR 63.1294; See also 63 FR at 53982. At the time we developed the 
NESHAP for this source category, we recognized that these

[[Page 48083]]

emission points regularly emit small quantities of HAP, and we 
promulgated standards regulating equipment leaks from these components 
at 40 CFR 63.1294. This provision requires flexible polyurethane foam 
facilities to monitor for leaks and to repair any detected leaks. This 
requirement does not establish any exemption, and the commenter's 
suggestion that leaks are ``exempt'' from regulation or that they are 
``authorized'' is not supported. While any specific equipment leak is 
not predictable, the types of equipment leaks addressed by the 
regulations at 40 CFR 63.1294 are fairly routine emissions from sources 
and are not the type of unpredictable or infrequent event for which we 
cannot anticipate when, where or how they may occur and that we 
generally consider to be malfunctions.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed 
rule, we have removed the SSM exemption from the FPUF Production 
NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or 
modified inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the 
absence of the SSM exemption. We are finalizing our proposed 
determination that no additional standards are needed to address 
emissions during startup or shutdown periods.
    Furthermore, for the reasons provided in section IV.C. of the 
preamble, we are not including the proposed affirmative defense 
provisions in the final rule.

D. Electronic Reporting of Performance Test Data Provisions for the 
FPUF Production Source Category

1. What provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance test 
data did we propose for the FPUF Production source category?
    As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to 
take a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and 
data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA proposed to require owners 
and operators of FPUF Production facilities to submit electronic copies 
of certain required performance test reports. The details are provided 
in the FPUF Production proposal.
2. How did the provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance 
test data change for the FPUF Production source category?
    We reviewed the proposed provisions regarding the electronic 
reporting of performance test data and made minor edits to the language 
to clarify these requirements.
3. What key comments did we receive on the provisions regarding 
electronic reporting of performance test data, and what are our 
responses?
    No comments regarding electronic reporting of performance test data 
were received.
4. What is the rationale for our final action regarding electronic 
reporting of performance test data?
    For the reasons provided below, the EPA is finalizing the proposed 
provisions requiring owners and operators of FPUF Production facilities 
to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test 
reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic 
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an 
electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will 
generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then 
archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and 
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web 
site: (https://www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA will not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. Further, the EPA 
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the 
performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking 
benefits industry by reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance 
test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI will no longer 
be required to be kept in hard copy.
    State, local and tribal agencies may benefit from more streamlined 
and accurate review of performance test data that will be available on 
the EPA WebFIRE database. Additionally, performance test data will 
become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data 
publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more 
thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using 
direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided 
software, see the discussion in the preamble to the proposal.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA 
significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and air quality regulations.

E. Clarifications to the FPUF Production NESHAP

1. What clarifications to the FPUF Production NESHAP were proposed?
    The EPA proposed to revise the FPUF Production NESHAP to clarify 
the leak detection methods allowed for diisocyanate storage vessels at 
slabstock foam production facilities and to add a schedule for leak 
repairs of valves and connectors in diisocyanate service that are on a 
delay of repair schedule.
    Specifically, the EPA proposed to clarify the leak detection 
methods that may be used for diisocyanate storage vessels at slabstock 
foam production facilities during unloading events. The current 
requirements allow the vapor return line to be inspected for leaks 
during unloading events using visual, audible or any other detection 
method. The EPA proposed to clarify, that ``any other detection 
method'' must be an instrumental detection method.
    The EPA also proposed to revise the provisions regarding delay of 
leak repairs for valves and connectors in diisocyanate service. A delay 
of repair is currently allowed by the NESHAP if the owner or operator 
determines that diisocyanate emissions of purged material resulting 
from immediate repair are greater than the fugitive emissions likely to 
result from a delay of repair. However, the current provisions for 
these valves and connectors do not state how long such a delay may 
last. Under the proposed requirements, the repair must be completed as 
soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months after the leak is 
detected.
2. How did the clarifications to the FPUF Production NESHAP change?
    We have not changed any aspects of the proposed rule amendments

[[Page 48084]]

regarding the clarification to diisocyanate storage vessels leak 
detection methods or the leak delay of repair requirements for valves 
and connectors in diisocyanate service.
3. What key comments did we receive on the clarifications to the FPUF 
Production NESHAP, and what are our responses?
    No comments were received regarding the clarification to 
diisocyanate storage vessels leak detection methods, and one comment 
regarding the diisocyanate equipment leak delay of repair requirements 
for valves and connectors was received. The following is a summary of 
this comment and our response.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the EPA proposed to allow sources 
to delay leak repair for 6 months in certain circumstances and stated 
that this is both an unreasonably long period and that it creates a 6-
month exemption from the emission standards. The commenter also 
asserted that the 15 days allowed for repair under normal conditions is 
an unlawful exemption from the standard. The commenter contended that 
the EPA must require leak repair to occur, once detected, within the 
absolute minimum time needed to end each leak.
    Response: EPA did not propose to revise 40 CFR 63.1294(c), the 
provision that specified when leaks must be repaired under normal 
conditions, and thus the issue of whether this provision is appropriate 
is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We disagree, however, that 
when leaks must be repaired establishes an exemption from the standard. 
As noted earlier in this preamble, consistent with CAA section 112(h), 
EPA established an LDAR program as a work practice standard in lieu of 
setting specific emission limits for equipment leaks. A necessary 
component of such a program is a requirement that the leaks be repaired 
within specified timeframes. The existing rules require that leak 
repairs be made as soon as practicable, with a first attempt required 
within 5 calendar days of detection, and the repairs must be completed 
within 15 calendar days of detection. As noted in Technology Review and 
Cost Impacts for the Proposed Amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Production Source Category, the format for these requirements was 
based on the requirements of the HON, 40 CFR 63, subpart H. As 
explained in the proposal preamble for that rule, 57 FR at 62608, these 
time periods are intended to provide effective emission reduction, 
while allowing the time necessary for scheduling of more complex 
repairs.
    Regarding the proposed requirement that repairs to components 
placed on a delay of repair schedule be completed within 6 months, we 
note that the 1998 FPUF Production NESHAP has no requirement for when 
repairs must be completed for valves and connectors, while there is a 
requirement that pumps must be repaired within 6 months. The 
requirements being finalized today will ensure that repair of leaks at 
valves and connectors is not delayed beyond 6 months. This requirement 
is consistent with the existing provision for pumps. We further note 
that a facility may take up to 6 months to repair a leak only if the 
facility determines that emissions of purged material resulting from 
immediate repair are greater than the fugitive emissions likely to 
result from delay of repair. In other words, a delay of repair is 
allowed only when the net result is lower emissions.
4. What are our final actions to clarify the FPUF Production NESHAP?
    For the reasons provided in above and in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, the EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to the FPUF 
Production NESHAP to clarify that the reference to ``any other 
detection method'' for diisocyanate storage vessels leak detection 
methods means an instrumental detection method. We are furthermore, 
adding a 6-month maximum timeframe for delay of repairs for 
diisocyanate equipment leaks from valves and connectors.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The facilities affected by this final rule include facilities with 
new and existing flexible polyurethane foam or rebond foam processes 
that emit HAP and are located at a plant site that is a major source 
for HAP emissions. We anticipate that 12 FPUF Production facilities 
currently operating in the United States will be affected by these 
final amendments.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We estimate that the final amendments to the FPUF Production NESHAP 
will not result in any directly quantifiable reduction of actual HAP 
emissions. However, we estimate that the MACT-allowable HAP emissions 
for the FPUF Production source category will be reduced by 735 tpy. We 
are finalizing requirements to prohibit the use of HAP and HAP-based 
ABAs at slabstock foam production facilities. As HAP and HAP-based ABAs 
are no longer used by FPUF Production facilities, no additional 
emission reductions will be realized as a result of these requirements, 
although potential increases in emissions in the future will be 
prevented. We do not expect any emissions impacts due to the final 
requirements to report performance tests through the ERT.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the final amendments, FPUF Production facilities are not 
expected to incur any costs. However, there may be small cost savings 
at some facilities due to reduced monitoring and recordkeeping costs. 
The memorandum, Technology Review and Cost Impacts for the Proposed 
Amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Source Category 
includes a complete description of the cost estimate methods prepared 
during the development of this rule and is available in the docket for 
this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510).
    Though the cost savings cannot be monetized, consistent with 
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 
issued on January 18, 2011, the electronic reporting requirements being 
finalized in this action for performance test reports are expected to 
reduce the burden for the FPUF Production facilities in the future by 
reducing recordkeeping costs and the costs associated data collection 
requests, which may be fewer or less substantial (due to performance 
test information being readily available on the EPA's WebFIRE 
database).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Since no costs or a small cost savings are expected as a result of 
the final amendments, there will not be any significant impacts on 
affected firms or their consumers as a result of this proposal.
    As no small firms face significant control costs, this regulation 
is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities.

E. What are the benefits?

    We do not anticipate any significant actual HAP emissions 
reductions as a result of these final amendments. However, as explained 
in the air quality impacts section, we are finalizing requirements to 
prohibit the use of HAP and HAP-based ABAs at slabstock foam production 
facilities. Because no sources are currently using these ABAs, we 
expect no additional emission reductions will be realized, although 
increases in emissions in the future will be prevented. For the final 
revisions to

[[Page 48085]]

the FPUF Production NESHAP including changes regarding SSM, the 
clarification to the leak detection methods allowed for diisocyanate 
storage vessels, and the inclusion of a schedule for delay of leak 
repairs for valves and connectors, these changes may result in fewer 
emissions during SSM periods, less frequent SSM periods, and fewer 
emissions from diisocyanate storage vessels and equipment leaks. 
However, the possible emission reductions are difficult to quantify and 
are not included in our assessment of health benefits. We do not expect 
any emissions impacts due to the final requirements to report 
performance tests through the ERT.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, 
therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has 
been assigned EPA ICR number 1783.07. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the 
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emission standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The OMB previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulation being amended with this final rule 
(i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts III) under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB control 
numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 
9. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    We estimate approximately 12 regulated entities are currently 
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart III, and will be subject to all 
final standards. The total annual monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 
years after the effective date of the standards) for subpart III (FPUF 
Production), including today's final amendments, is 882 labor hours per 
year at a total labor cost of $46,810 per year, and total non-labor 
capital and operation and maintenance costs of $0 per year.
    The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the 
first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to 
be 60 hours per year at a total labor cost of $3,234 per year. Burden 
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR 
is approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. According to the SBA small business 
standards definitions, for the FPUF Production source category, which 
has the NAICS code of 326150 (i.e., Urethane and Other Foam Product 
(except Polystyrene) Manufacturing), the SBA small business size 
standard is 500 employees.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Three 
facilities, or 25 percent of the 12 affected facilities, are small 
entities. Total annualized costs for the final rule are estimated to be 
$0, and no small entities are projected to incur costs. Because HAP 
ABAs are no longer used by FPUF Production facilities, there are no 
impacts on any entities subject to this rulemaking.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This 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 one year. 
This final rule is not expected to impact state, local or tribal 
governments, and FPUF Production facilities are not expected to incur 
any costs as a result of this final rule. Thus, this rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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 Executive Order 13132. This action will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, nor 
will it preempt state law, and none of the facilities subject to this 
action are owned or operated by state governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

[[Page 48086]]

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). There are no 
FPUF Production facilities that are within 3 miles of tribal lands. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Although 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA solicited 
comments on this action from tribal officials, but received none.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This action will not relax the 
control measures on existing regulated sources, and the EPA's risk 
assessments (included in the docket for this action) demonstrate that 
the regulation, as amended to include today's final changes, is health 
protective.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, (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

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 
directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCSs. However, we 
identified no such standards, and none were brought to our attention in 
comments. Therefore, the EPA has decided to continue to use EPA Method 
25A, ''Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a 
Flame Ionization Analyzer,'' 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, to measure 
organic compound concentrations.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    To gain a better understanding of the FPUF Production source 
category and near[hyphen]source populations, the EPA conducted a 
proximity analysis at a study area of 3 miles of the facilities in the 
source category prior to the November 2013 proposal, and revised the 
analysis for this final rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on a 
limited basis, the subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution 
from the regulated sources, and thus, are expected to benefit most from 
this regulation. The analysis does not quantify the level of risk faced 
by those individuals or communities. The revised proximity analysis 
shows that most demographic categories are within 20 percent of their 
corresponding national averages, except for the African American 
population, which exceeds the national average by 53 percent (19 
percent versus 13 percent). To the extent that any minority, 
low[hyphen]income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately 
impacted by hazardous air pollutant emissions due to the proximity of 
their homes to sources of these emissions, that subpopulation also 
stands to see increased environmental and health benefits from the 
emission reductions called for by this rule. The revised proximity 
analysis results are presented in the July 2014 memorandum titled, 
Final Environmental Justice Review: Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production, a copy of which is available in the docket for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510).
    The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed by 
emissions from the FPUF production source category are acceptable and, 
along with the existing NESHAP, as modified to include the HAP and HAP-
based ABA prohibition that we are finalizing today, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. Additionally, the final changes to the standard 
increase the level of environmental protection for all affected 
populations by ensuring no future emissions increases from the source 
category.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 final rule and other required 
information to the United States Senate, the United States House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on August 15, 2014.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: July 29, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection agency is amending title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart III--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production

0
2. Section 63.1290 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

[[Page 48087]]

Sec.  63.1290  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) A process meeting one of the following criteria listed in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section shall not be subject to the 
provisions of this subpart:
    (1) A process exclusively dedicated to the fabrication of flexible 
polyurethane foam; or
    (2) A research and development process.
    (d) Applicability of this subpart. (1) The emission limitations set 
forth in this subpart and the emission limitations referred to in this 
subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of non-operation 
of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
    (2) Equipment leak requirements of Sec.  63.1294 shall apply at all 
times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or 
specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and 
depressurized resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
equipment leak requirements apply.
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment 
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during 
times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment if the 
shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to 
such items of equipment.
    (4) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator shall operate 
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.


0
3. Section 63.1291 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1291  Compliance schedule.

    (a) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with all 
provisions of this subpart no later than October 8, 2001, with the 
exception of Sec.  63.1297. Affected sources subject to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.1297 shall be in compliance with the 
requirements of this section on or before November 13, 2014.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1292 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions for ``HAP-based,'' ``Reconstructed 
source,'' ``Storage vessel'' and ``Transfer pump''; and
0
b. Removing the definitions for ``High-pressure mixhead,'' 
``Indentation Force Deflection (IFD),'' ``In HAP ABA service,'' 
``Recovery device,'' ``Run of foam,'' and ``Transfer vehicle''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1292  Definitions.

* * * * *
    HAP-based means to contain 5 percent (by weight) or more of HAP. 
This applies to equipment cleaners, mixhead flushes, mold release 
agents and ABA.
* * * * *
    Reconstructed source means an affected source undergoing 
reconstruction, as defined in subpart A of this part. For the purposes 
of this subpart, process modifications made to stop using HAP ABA or 
HAP-based ABA to meet the requirements of this subpart shall not be 
counted in determining whether or not a change or replacement meets the 
definition of reconstruction.
* * * * *
    Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is used to store 
diisocyanates for use in the production of flexible polyurethane foam. 
Storage vessels do not include vessels with capacities smaller than 38 
cubic meters (or 10,000 gallons).
    Transfer pump means all pumps used to transport diisocyanates that 
are not metering pumps.
0
5. Section 63.1293 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1293  Standards for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam 
production.

    Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock affected 
source shall comply with Sec. Sec.  63.1294, 63.1297, and 63.1298.
0
6. Section 63.1294 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (c), 
and (d)(2)(ii), and by adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1294  Standards for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam 
production--diisocyanate emissions.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) During each unloading event, the vapor return line shall be 
inspected for leaks by visual, audible, or an instrumental detection 
method.
* * * * *
    (c) Other components in diisocyanate service. If evidence of a leak 
is found by visual, audible, or an instrumental detection method, it 
shall be repaired as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 
calendar days after it is detected, except as provided in paragraph (d) 
of this section. The first attempt at repair shall be made no later 
than 5 calendar days after each leak is detected.
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The purged material is collected and destroyed or recovered in 
a control device when repair procedures are effected, and
    (iii) Repair is completed as soon as practicable, but not later 
than 6 months after the leak was detected.
* * * * *


Sec.  63.1295  [Removed and Reserved]

0
7. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1295.


Sec.  63.1296  [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1296.

0
9. Revise Sec.  63.1297 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1297  Standards for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam 
production--HAP ABA.

    Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock affected 
source shall not use HAP or a HAP-based material as an ABA.

0
10. Revise Sec.  63.1298 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1298  Standards for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam 
production--HAP emissions from equipment cleaning.

    Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock affected 
source shall not use HAP or a HAP-based material as an equipment 
cleaner.


Sec.  63.1299  [Removed and Reserved]

0
11. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1299.
0
12. Revise Sec.  63.1302 to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1302  Applicability of subpart A requirements.

    The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with the 
applicable requirements of subpart A of this part, as specified in 
Table 1 of this subpart.

0
13. Section 63.1303 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
d. Removing paragraphs (c), (d) and (e).
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 48088]]

Sec.  63.1303  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) Monitoring requirements for storage vessel carbon adsorption 
systems. Each owner or operator using a carbon adsorption system to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  63.1294(a) shall monitor the 
concentration level of the HAP or the organic compounds in the exhaust 
vent stream (or outlet stream exhaust) from the carbon adsorption 
system at the frequency specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (b) Each owner or operator using a carbon adsorption system to meet 
the requirements of Sec.  63.1294(a) shall monitor the concentration 
level of total organic compounds in the exhaust vent stream (or outlet 
stream exhaust) from the carbon adsorption system using 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A, Method 25A, reported as propane. The measurement shall be 
conducted over at least one 5-minute interval during which the storage 
vessel is being filled.


Sec.  63.1304  [Removed and Reserved]

0
14. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1304.

0
15. Section 63.1306 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (c);
0
b. Redesigating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c) introductory text and 
(c)(3);
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d);
0
e. Revising paragraph (f);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (e);
0
g. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (e)(1) and (2); and
0
h. Adding a new paragraph (g).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1306  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Notification of compliance status. Each affected source shall 
submit a notification of compliance status report no later than 180 
days after the compliance date. For slabstock affected sources, this 
report shall contain the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section, as applicable. This report shall contain 
the information listed in paragraph (c)(4) of this section for molded 
foam processes and in paragraph (c)(5) of this section for rebond foam 
processes.
* * * * *
    (3) A statement that the slabstock foam affected source is in 
compliance with Sec. Sec.  63.1297 and 63.1298, or a statement that 
slabstock foam processes at an affected source are in compliance with 
Sec. Sec.  63.1297 and 63.1298.
* * * * *
    (d) Semiannual reports. Each slabstock affected source shall submit 
a report containing the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (3) of this section semiannually no later than 60 days after 
the end of each 180 day period. The first report shall be submitted no 
later than 240 days after the date that the Notification of Compliance 
Status is due and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on the date 
that the Notification of Compliance Status Report is due.
    (1) For sources complying with the storage vessel provisions of 
Sec.  63.1294(a) using a carbon adsorption system, unloading events 
that occurred after breakthrough was detected and before the carbon was 
replaced.
    (2) Any equipment leaks that were not repaired in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  63.1294(b)(2)(iii) and 63.1294(c).
    (3) Any leaks in vapor return lines that were not repaired in 
accordance with Sec.  63.1294(a)(1)(ii).
    (e) * * *
    (1) The compliance certification shall be based on information 
consistent with that contained in Sec.  63.1308, as applicable.
    (2) A compliance certification required pursuant to a state or 
local operating permit program may be used to satisfy the requirements 
of this section, provided that the compliance certification is based on 
information consistent with that contained in Sec.  63.1308, and 
provided that the Administrator has approved the state or local 
operating permit program under part 70 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (f) Malfunction reports. If a source fails to meet an applicable 
standard, slabstock affected sources shall report such events in the 
next semiannual report and molded and rebond affected sources shall 
report such events in the next annual compliance certification. Report 
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each 
instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each 
failure, the report shall include a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    (g) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you shall 
submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated 
fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph 
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/),, the owner or operator 
shall submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data shall be submitted in 
a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 
Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit performance test data 
in an electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, once the XML 
schema is available. Owners or operators, who claim that some of the 
information being submitted for performance tests is confidential 
business information (CBI), shall submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disk, flash drive 
or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 
electronic media shall be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file 
with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or 
operator shall submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.

0
16. Section 63.1307 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(2) and redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and 
(4) as paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), respectively;
0
b. Revising the newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, 
(a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(3)(i) introductory 
text and (b)(3)(i)(B);
0
e. Removing paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) introductory text and (b)(3)(ii)(A);
0
g. Removing paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D);

[[Page 48089]]

0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(E) through (H) as (b)(3)(ii)(D) 
through (G);
0
i. Revising paragraph (c);
0
j. Removing paragraph (d);
0
k. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (h) as (d) through (g);
0
l. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e); and
0
m. Adding new paragraph (h).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1307  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) For storage vessels complying through the use of a carbon 
adsorption system, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (ii), and paragraph 
(a)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) For affected sources monitoring at an interval no greater than 
20 percent of the carbon replacement interval, in accordance with Sec.  
63.1303(a)(2), the records listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) For storage vessels complying through the use of a vapor return 
line, paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A list of components in diisocyanate service.
* * * * *
    (3) When a leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec.  
63.1294(b)(2)(ii) and 63.1294(c), the requirements listed in paragraphs 
(b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section apply:
    (i) Leaking equipment shall be identified in accordance with the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (B) The identification on equipment may be removed after it has 
been repaired.
    (ii) The information in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (G) shall 
be recorded for leaking components.
    (A) The operator identification number and the equipment 
identification number.
* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to Sec.  
63.1297 shall maintain a product data sheet for each ABA used which 
includes the HAP content, in kg of HAP/kg solids (lb HAP/lb solids).
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of an affected source following the 
compliance methods in Sec.  63.1308(b)(1) shall maintain records of 
each use of a vapor return line during unloading, of any leaks detected 
during unloading, and of repairs of leaks detected during unloading.
* * * * *
    (h) Malfunction records. Records shall be kept as specified in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section for affected sources. 
Records are not required for emission points that do not require 
control under this subpart.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the 
date, time and duration of the failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and 
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1290(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.


0
17. Section 63.1308 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(6), and (c);
0
c. Removing paragraph (d); and
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (e) as (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1308  Compliance demonstrations.

    (a) For each affected source, compliance with the requirements 
described in Tables 2 and 3 of this subpart shall mean compliance with 
the requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  63.1293 through 63.1301, 
absent any credible evidence to the contrary.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) For each affected source complying with Sec.  63.1294(a) in 
accordance with Sec.  63.1294(a)(2) through the alternative monitoring 
procedures in Sec.  63.1303(a)(2), each unloading event that the 
diisocyanate storage vessel is not equipped with a carbon adsorption 
system, each time that the carbon adsorption system is not monitored 
for breakthrough in accordance with Sec.  63.1303(b)(1) or (2) at the 
interval established in the design analysis, and each unloading event 
that occurs when the carbon is not replaced after an indication of 
breakthrough;
* * * * *
    (6) For each affected source complying with Sec.  63.1294(c), each 
calendar day after 5 calendar days after detection of a leak that a 
first attempt at repair has not been made, and the earlier of each 
calendar day after 15 calendar days after detection of a leak that a 
leak is not repaired, or if a leak is not repaired as soon as 
practicable, each subsequent calendar day (with the exception of 
situations meeting the criteria of Sec.  63.1294(d)).
    (c) Slabstock affected sources. For slabstock foam affected 
sources, failure to meet the requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  
63.1297 and 63.1298, respectively, shall be considered a violation of 
this subpart. Violation of each item listed in the following paragraphs 
shall be considered a separate violation.
    (1) For each slabstock foam affected source subject to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.1297, each calendar day that a HAP ABA or HAP-
based material is used as an ABA;
    (2) For each slabstock foam affected source subject to the 
provisions of Sec.  63.1298, each calendar day that a HAP-based 
material is used as an equipment cleaner.
* * * * *


Sec.  63.1309  [Amended]

0
18. Section 63.1309 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(4) and 
redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(4).

Table 1 to Subpart III of Part 63 [Removed]

0
19. Remove Table 1 to Subpart III of part 63.

Table 2 to Subpart III of Part 63 [Redesignated as Table 1 to Subpart 
III of Part 63]

0
20. Redesignate Table 2 to Subpart III of Part 63 as Table 1 to Subpart 
III of Part 63 and amend newly redesignated Table 1 by:
0
a. Revising the heading;
0
b. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2);
0
c. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(ii), and Sec.  
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
0
d. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(e)(3);
0
e. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(e)(2)-(3):
0
f. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(f)-(g);
0
g. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(f)(1), Sec.  63.6(f)(2)-(3), and Sec.  
63.6(g);
0
h. Removing entry Sec.  63.10(a)-(b);
0
i. Adding entries Sec.  63.10(a), Sec.  63.10(b)(1), Sec.  
63.10(b)(2)(i), Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(ii), Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iii), Sec.  
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(xi), Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii), Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii), 
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv), and Sec.  63.10(b)(3);
0
j. Removing entry Sec.  63.10(d)(4)-(5); and
0
k. Adding entries Sec.  63.10(d)(4) and Sec.  63.10(d)(5).
    The revision and additions read as follows:

[[Page 48090]]



  Table 1 to Subpart III of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                       III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subpart A reference               Applies to subpart III                     Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).....................  NO........................  See Sec.   63.1290(d)(4) for general duty
                                                                        requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)....................  NO........................  .........................................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)-(3)....................  NO........................  .........................................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)........................  NO........................  .........................................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)....................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.6(g)...........................  YES.......................  .........................................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(a)..........................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).......................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)....................  NO........................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...................  NO........................  See Sec.   63.1307(h) for recordkeeping
                                                                        of (1) date, time and duration; (2)
                                                                        listing of affected source or equipment
                                                                        and an estimate of the volume of each
                                                                        regulated pollutant emitted over the
                                                                        standard; and (3) actions to minimize
                                                                        emissions and any actions taken at the
                                                                        discretion of the owner or operator to
                                                                        prevent recurrence of the failure to
                                                                        meet an applicable requirement.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(xi)..............  NO........................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)..................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).................  NO........................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).......................  YES.......................  .........................................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).......................  YES.......................  .........................................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5).......................  NO........................  See Sec.   63.1306(f) for malfunction
                                                                        reporting requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 to Subpart III of Part 63 [Redesignated as Table 2 to Subpart 
III of Part 63]

0
21. Redesignate Table 3 to Subpart III of Part 63 as Table 2 to Subpart 
III of Part 63 and amend newly redesignated Table 2 by:
0
a. Revising the heading;
0
b. Removing entries for HAP ABA storage vessels Sec.  63.1295, HAP ABA 
pumps Sec.  63.1296(a), HAP ABA valves Sec.  63.1296(b), HAP ABA 
connectors Sec.  63.1296(c), Pressure relief devices Sec.  63.1296(d), 
Open-ended valves or lines Sec.  63.1296(e), and Production line Sec.  
63.1297; and
0
c. Adding an entry for ABAs Sec.  63.1297.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

                        Table 2 to Subpart III of Part 63--Compliance Requirements for Slabstock Foam Production Affected Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Emission, work
                                                                 Emission point     practice, and
                        Emission point                             compliance         equipment        Monitoring       Recordkeeping       Reporting
                                                                     option           standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
ABAs Sec.   63.1297...........................................               N/A    Sec.   63.1297  ................              Sec.  ................
                                                                                                                            63.1307(e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4 to Subpart III of Part 63 [Removed]

0
22. Remove Table 4 to Subpart III of Part 63.

Table 5 to Subpart III of Part 63 [Redesignated as Table 3 to Subpart 
III of Part 63]

0
23. Redesignate Table 5 to Subpart III of Part 63 as Table 3 to Subpart 
III of Part 63 and amend newly redesignated Table 3 by revising the 
heading to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart III of Part 63--Compliance Requirements for Molded 
and Rebond Foam Production Affected Sources

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-18734 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P