Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 48073 

This Federal Register notice, the 

petitions for reconsideration, the letters 

providing the EPA’s decision on the 

reconsideration and the Response to 

Comment document can also be found 

on the EPA’s Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/icengines/. The 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines and the Standards 

of Performance for Stationary Internal 

Combustion Engines were published in 

the Federal Register on January 30, 

2013, at 78 FR 6674. The notice of 

reconsideration and request for public 

comment was published in the Federal 

Register on September 5, 2013, at 78 FR 

54610. 

II. Judicial Review 

Any petitions for review of the letters 

announcing the EPA’s decision not to 

propose changes to the regulations in 

response to the public comments 

received on the three issues under 

reconsideration described in this Notice 

must be filed in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by October 14, 2014. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 1, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19062 Filed 8–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 http://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 http:// 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48074 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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: http:// 

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 http:// 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 48075 

1The 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.’’). 

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. 

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 HAPbased 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48076 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 HAPbased 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 noncancer 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 bioaccumulative 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

Emissions level Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2

Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer 

≥ 1-in-1 

Million 

Estimated 

annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic 

non-cancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum screening acute 

non-cancer HQ 4

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. 

4The 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48078 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 costbenefit 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 HAPbased 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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-bycase 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 wellperforming 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48082 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2The 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. 

3Although 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). 

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

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. 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site: (http://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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48084 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48086 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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-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-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] 

■ 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 

■ 2. Section 63.1290 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 48087 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 3. Section 63.1291 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 63.1297. 

Affected sources subject to the 

requirements of § 63.1297 shall be in 

compliance with the requirements of 

this section on or before November 13, 

2014. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.1292 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the definitions for ‘‘HAPbased,’’ ‘‘Reconstructed source,’’ 

‘‘Storage vessel’’ and ‘‘Transfer pump’’; 

and 

■ b. Removing the definitions for ‘‘Highpressure mixhead,’’ ‘‘Indentation Force 

Deflection (IFD),’’ ‘‘In HAP ABA 

service,’’ ‘‘Recovery device,’’ ‘‘Run of 

foam,’’ and ‘‘Transfer vehicle’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 5. Section 63.1293 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1293 Standards for slabstock flexible 

polyurethane foam production. 

Each owner or operator of a new or 

existing slabstock affected source shall 

comply with §§ 63.1294, 63.1297, and 

63.1298. 

■ 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: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1295 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 7. Remove and reserve § 63.1295. 

§ 63.1296 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 8. Remove and reserve § 63.1296. 

■ 9. Revise § 63.1297 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 10. Revise § 63.1298 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

§ 63.1299 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 11. Remove and reserve § 63.1299. 

■ 12. Revise § 63.1302 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 13. Section 63.1303 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (a)(3) and 

(a)(4); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b); and 

■ d. Removing paragraphs (c), (d) and 

(e). 

The revisions read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48088 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 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 § 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 § 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. 

§ 63.1304 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 14. Remove and reserve § 63.1304. 

■ 15. Section 63.1306 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (c); 

■ b. Redesigating paragraphs (d) and (e) 

as paragraphs (c) and (d); 

■ c. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (c) introductory text and 

(c)(3); 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (d); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (f); 

■ f. Redesignating paragraph (g) as 

paragraph (e); 

■ g. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (2); and 

■ h. Adding a new paragraph (g). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 §§ 63.1297 and 63.1298, or a 

statement that slabstock foam processes 

at an affected source are in compliance 

with §§ 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 § 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 

§§ 63.1294(b)(2)(iii) and 63.1294(c). 

(3) Any leaks in vapor return lines 

that were not repaired in accordance 

with § 63.1294(a)(1)(ii). 

(e) * * * 

(1) The compliance certification shall 

be based on information consistent with 

that contained in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html),, 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) (http://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 § 63.13. 

■ 16. Section 63.1307 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (a)(2) and 

redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) 

as paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), 

respectively; 

■ b. Revising the newly redesignated 

paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, 

(a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3) introductory text; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) 

introductory text, (b)(3)(i) introductory 

text and (b)(3)(i)(B); 

■ e. Removing paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C); 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) 

introductory text and (b)(3)(ii)(A); 

■ g. Removing paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D); 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 48089 

■ h. Redesignating paragraphs 

(b)(3)(ii)(E) through (H) as (b)(3)(ii)(D) 

through (G); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ j. Removing paragraph (d); 

■ k. Redesignating paragraphs (e) 

through (h) as (d) through (g); 

■ l. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (e); and 

■ m. Adding new paragraph (h). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 63.1290(d) and any corrective actions 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation. 

■ 17. Section 63.1308 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(6), 

and (c); 

■ c. Removing paragraph (d); and 

■ d. Redesignating paragraph (e) as (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 63.1293 

through 63.1301, absent any credible 

evidence to the contrary. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) For each affected source 

complying with § 63.1294(a) in 

accordance with § 63.1294(a)(2) through 

the alternative monitoring procedures in 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 63.1294(d)). 

(c) Slabstock affected sources. For 

slabstock foam affected sources, failure 

to meet the requirements contained in 

§§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 63.1298, each calendar day that a 

HAP-based material is used as an 

equipment cleaner. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1309 [Amended] 

■ 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] 

■ 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] 

■ 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: 

■ a. Revising the heading; 

■ b. Removing entry § 63.6(e)(1)-(2); 

■ c. Adding entries § 63.6(e)(1)(i), 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii), and § 63.6(e)(1)(iii); 

■ d. Removing entry § 63.6(e)(3); 

■ e. Adding entry § 63.6(e)(2)–(3): 

■ f. Removing entry § 63.6(f)–(g); 

■ g. Adding entries § 63.6(f)(1), 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3), and § 63.6(g); 

■ h. Removing entry § 63.10(a)–(b); 

■ i. Adding entries § 63.10(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)(2)(xiii), § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), and 

§ 63.10(b)(3); 

■ j. Removing entry § 63.10(d)(4)–(5); 

and 

■ k. Adding entries § 63.10(d)(4) and 

§ 63.10(d)(5). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
48090 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

*******

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................. NO ....................................... See § 63.1290(d)(4) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .................. NO .......................................

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................. YES .....................................

§ 63.6(e)(2)–(3) ............... NO .......................................

§ 63.6(f)(1) ....................... NO .......................................

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ................ YES .....................................

§ 63.6(g) .......................... YES .....................................

*******

§ 63.10(a) ........................ YES .....................................

§ 63.10(b)(1) .................... YES .....................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ................ NO .......................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................ NO ....................................... See § 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. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............... YES .....................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(xi) ........ NO .......................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) .............. YES .....................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............. NO .......................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............. YES .....................................

§ 63.10(b)(3) .................... YES .....................................

*******

§ 63.10(d)(4) .................... YES .....................................

§ 63.10(d)(5) .................... NO ....................................... See § 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] 

■ 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: 

■ a. Revising the heading; 

■ b. Removing entries for HAP ABA 

storage vessels § 63.1295, HAP ABA 

pumps § 63.1296(a), HAP ABA valves 

§ 63.1296(b), HAP ABA connectors 

§ 63.1296(c), Pressure relief devices 

§ 63.1296(d), Open-ended valves or 

lines § 63.1296(e), and Production line 

§ 63.1297; and 

■ c. Adding an entry for ABAs 

§ 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 point 

Emission point 

compliance 

option 

Emission, work 

practice, and 

equipment 

standards 

Monitoring Recordkeeping Reporting 

*******

ABAs § 63.1297 ................................................ N/A § 63.1297 ............................ § 63.1307(e) ............................

Table 4 to Subpart III of Part 63 

[Removed] 

■ 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] 

■ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0444; FRL–9909–83] 

Sweet Orange Peel Tincture; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES