[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64385-64407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24019]



[[Page 64385]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572; FRL-7526-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU57


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Residual Risk and 
Technology Review and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication Area Source Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations source category regulated under national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). This action also finalizes the 
NESHAP technology review for two area source categories, Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication, which are combined in one subpart. In this action, the EPA 
is finalizing the proposed revisions to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations major source NESHAP, which include adding a 
numeric emission limit for existing flame lamination units, removing 
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and 
specifying that the emissions standards always apply, requiring 
periodic performance tests, and requiring electronic reporting of 
performance test results and compliance reports. In this action, the 
EPA is also finalizing the proposed revisions to the NESHAP for 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication area sources to remove references to the provisions of 
another NESHAP that has been revised and no longer contains the 
referenced provisions. Implementation of these final rules is not 
expected to result in significant changes to the hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions from affected facilities in these three 
source categories or to human health impacts or environmental impacts 
associated with those emissions. However, this action will result in 
improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the existing 
standards and codifies existing industry practices to prevent 
backsliding.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 18, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0572. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of 
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was 
closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of 
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide 
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. There is a 
temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, and no hand 
deliveries are currently accepted. For further information and updates 
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us 
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Ms. Lisa Sutton, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-3450; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of 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: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The Agency uses multiple acronyms 
and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to 
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

    CAA Clean Air Act
    CDX Central Data Exchange
    CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
    CFR Code of Federal Regulations
    CRA Congressional Review Act
    EPA Environmental Protection Agency
    ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
    GACT generally available control technology
    HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
    HCl hydrochloric acid
    HQ hazard quotient
    HQREL hazard quotient reference exposure level
    ICR Information Collection Request
    km kilometer
    MACT maximum achievable control technology
    MIR maximum individual risk
    NAICS North American Industry Classification System
    NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
    NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    OMB Office of Management and Budget
    OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
    RATA relative accuracy test audit
    REL reference exposure level
    RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
    RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
    RIN Regulatory Information Number
    RTR risk and technology review
    SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
    UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
    tpy tons per year
    UPL upper prediction limit
    XML extensible markup language

    Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean the EPA.
    Background information. On January 11, 2021, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations NESHAP based on our RTR and to the NESHAP for Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area sources based on our 
technology review. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and 
revisions for the rules. We summarize some of the more significant 
comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our 
responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on 
the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rule for the 
Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication NESHAP and the 
NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area 
Sources (86 FR 1868, January 11, 2021), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0572. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that 
incorporates

[[Page 64386]]

the changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

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 and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAPs 
regulate their HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication operations for major sources and flexible polyurethane 
foam production and fabrication area sources in our January 11, 
2021, proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
reviews for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations source category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production and Fabrication area source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to section 
112(d)(2) and (3) for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations source category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations 
source category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication area source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Major Source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Major Source Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Fabrication Operations Source Category and the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Source Categories
    C. Actions Taken Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and 
112(d)(3)
    D. Removal of the SSM Exemptions
    E. Electronic Reporting
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    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?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    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 (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The source categories that are the subject of this final action are 
the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source 
category regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM, and the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication area source categories, regulated under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart OOOOOO. The North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code for fabricators of flexible polyurethane foam is 326150, 
``Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing.'' 
This list of categories and NAICS codes is not intended to be 
exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the 
entities that this final action is likely to affect. The final 
standards will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, 
state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by 
this action.
    The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source 
category was added to the EPA's HAP source category list in 1996. (61 
FR 28197, June 4, 1996.) The NESHAP for that major source category, 40 
CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM, was promulgated in 2003. (68 FR 18062, 
April 14, 2003.) The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source 
category was added to the EPA's HAP source category list in 1999. (64 
FR 38706, July 19, 1999.) The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 
area source category was added to the EPA's HAP source category list in 
2002. (67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002.) The Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production major source category, Part 63, subpart III, was included on 
the EPA's initial HAP source category list. (57 FR 31576, July 16, 
1992.) The maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for 
subpart III were initially promulgated in 1998. (63 FR 53980, October 
7, 1998.) The EPA established one area source NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart OOOOOO, that applies to the two area source categories due to 
the similarity of their operations and because they are often 
collocated. (72 FR 38864, July 16, 2007.)
    The Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source 
category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source 
category include facilities engaged in cutting, gluing, and/or 
laminating pieces of flexible polyurethane foam. These source 
categories include fabrication operations that are collocated with foam 
production plants as well as those located offsite from foam production 
plants. Emissions from foam fabrication primarily result from the 
lamination of polyurethane foam to adhere foam to other substrates and 
from the use of HAP-based adhesives in the gluing process. The Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production area source category includes facilities 
that manufacture foam made from a polymer containing a plurality of 
carbamate linkages in the chain backbone (polyurethane). Polyurethane 
is commonly made by reacting a polyisocyanate with an organic 
polyhydroxyl material in the presence of water. Application of blowing 
agents, catalysts, surfactants, and fillers transform the polyurethane 
into a foam with specialized properties.
    This final action addresses the major source NESHAP that applies to 
the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source 
category and addresses the area source NESHAP that applies to the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production area source category and the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source category. 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 also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the

[[Page 64387]]

EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/flexible-polyurethane-foam-fabrication-operations-national-emission. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    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 January 18, 2022. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only 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 if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator 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, WJC South 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?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 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 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All 
other sources are ``area sources.'' 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, including, but not limited to, those 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; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which 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. For area 
sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set 
standards based on generally available control technologies or 
management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
    In the second stage of the NESHAP 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, which is applicable to both MACT and GACT standards, 
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, 
which is limited to the MACT standards, 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 the proposal 
preamble (86 FR 1868, January 11, 2021) and the memorandum, CAA Section 
112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, 
December 14, 2017, available in the docket for this action (Document ID 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAPs 
regulate their HAP emissions?

    The EPA promulgated MACT standards for major source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication

[[Page 64388]]

Operations facilities in 2003 under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM. The 
standards apply to major sources of HAP at existing and new flexible 
polyurethane foam fabrication facilities. Because of their potential to 
generate HAP emissions, the processing units of interest at foam 
fabrication facilities are loop slitters and flame lamination units. 
The 2003 MACT standards for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations require HAP emissions reductions and control for new flame 
lamination units and prohibit use of HAP-based adhesives in new and 
existing loop slitting operations. For new flame lamination units, a 90 
percent reduction in HAP emissions is required. For existing flame 
lamination units, the 2003 rule had no MACT emission limits. For new 
and existing loop slitters, the 2003 MACT standards prohibited use of 
any adhesive containing 5 percent or more (by weight) of total HAP. The 
EPA estimates that there are currently three facilities subject to 
subpart MMMMM.
    In 2007, the EPA promulgated GACT standards for the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production area source category and the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source category together under 40 
CFR part 63, subpart OOOOOO. The GACT standards required that methylene 
chloride be significantly reduced or eliminated from slabstock foam 
production, molded foam release agents, equipment cleaning, rebond foam 
mold release agents, and foam fabrication adhesive use. Although both 
area source categories were listed for regulation due to emissions of 
the urban HAP methylene chloride, the EPA finds that methylene chloride 
is no longer used within either source category. The Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production area source category includes facilities 
that manufacture foam made from polyurethanes, which are in the class 
of compounds called ``reaction polymers.'' There are three types of 
polyurethane foam production facilities: Slabstock flexible 
polyurethane foam (slabstock foam), molded flexible polyurethane foam 
(molded foam), and rebond foam. Slabstock foam is produced in large 
continuous buns that are then cut in the desired size and shape. Molded 
foam is produced by ``shooting'' the foam mixture into a mold of the 
desired shape and size. Rebond foam is made from scrap foam that is 
converted into a material primarily used for carpet underlay. The EPA 
estimates that there are 32 facilities currently subject to the area 
source standards, of which approximately 20 are believed to be owned by 
small businesses.
    For both the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Operations major source 
category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source 
category, operations involve cutting, bonding, and/or laminating pieces 
of flexible polyurethane foam together or to other substrates. Typical 
bonding techniques include gluing, taping, and flame lamination.
    Both the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible 
Polyurethane Fabrication Operations area source categories were listed 
for regulation due to emissions of the urban HAP methylene chloride. At 
the time of the initial area source standards promulgation, methylene 
chloride was the only urban HAP used at foam production and foam 
fabrication facilities. Now, however, there are no known urban HAP used 
at foam production and foam fabrication facilities. In the past, 
slabstock foam production facilities sometimes used methylene chloride 
as an auxiliary blowing agent to control the density and other 
properties of the foam as it expanded during the pouring process. 
Methylene chloride was also sometimes used as an equipment cleaner, in 
particular for mix heads. A small number of molded and rebond foam 
facilities used methylene chloride in mold release agents, and some 
molded foam facilities used it as a mixhead cleaner. Foam fabricators 
used methylene chloride-based adhesives to adhere pieces of foam to one 
another. Flame laminators have never used methylene chloride and, as 
such, are not regulated by the area source standards.

C. What changes did we propose for flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication operations for major sources and flexible polyurethane foam 
production and fabrication area sources in our January 11, 2021, 
proposal?

    On January 11, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (86 FR 1868) for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations NESHAP for major sources, 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMMM, and the NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 
and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Area Sources, 40 CFR part 
63, subpart OOOOOO, that took into consideration the RTR analyses for 
major sources and the technology review for area sources.
    For the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations NESHAP, we proposed that the health risks due to HAP 
emissions from the source category are acceptable, that the NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and that 
additional standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. To address emissions sources that do not have an 
emissions limit in the existing NESHAP, we proposed a numeric limit for 
HCl emissions from existing flame laminators under CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3). As a result of the technology review, we proposed to 
lower the amount of HAP that could be contained in an adhesive for that 
material to be considered a HAP-based adhesive. For this change, the 
definition of ``HAP-based adhesive'' was revised from adhesive with a 
HAP weight of 5 percent or more to adhesive with a HAP weight of 1 
percent or more. In addition, we proposed to amend the NESHAP to list 
specific carcinogenic HAP that must be included in the adhesive HAP 
content calculation, rather than including references to other rules 
where these HAP were previously but are no longer listed. We also 
proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of this NESHAP to ensure it is 
consistent with the court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Finally, we proposed revisions to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements of the NESHAP to require the use of 
electronic reporting of performance test reports and semiannual reports 
and to require initial and periodic performance testing (every 5 years) 
for flame lamination units.
    For the NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Area Sources, we proposed that 
no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary based on our technology 
review. Where subpart OOOOOO references the NESHAP for flexible 
polyurethane foam production major sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
III), we proposed to make conforming changes to reflect amendments made 
to subpart III. For additional information regarding the proposed rule, 
see the January 11, 2021, proposal (86 FR 1868).

III. What is included in these final rules?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations major source category and the CAA technology 
review provisions for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication area source categories. This action amends the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source NESHAP and the 
NESHAP for the Flexible

[[Page 64389]]

Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area source categories 
based on those determinations. This action also finalizes other changes 
to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source 
NESHAP, including the proposed addition of a numeric emissions limit 
for existing flame lamination units under the authority of CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3), revisions to the SSM requirements, addition of 
electronic reporting requirements, and editorial corrections. For the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area sources 
NESHAP, this action finalizes the proposed revisions to the rule to 
eliminate references to another NESHAP (Subpart III, National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production) that has been revised and no longer contains the referenced 
provisions.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source 
category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations major source NESHAP based on the risk review 
conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are 
finalizing our proposed determination that risks from the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source category are 
acceptable, the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health, and more stringent standards are not necessary to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new data 
or other information during the public comment period that causes us to 
change that proposed determination. Therefore, we are not making any 
revisions to the existing standards under CAA section 112(f), and we 
are readopting the existing standards. Further information regarding 
these decisions is provided in section IV of this preamble.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology reviews 
for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations 
source category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication area source categories?

    We determined that there are developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards 
for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations 
source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 
112(d)(6), consistent with the proposal, we are revising the MACT 
standards to include a revised definition of HAP-based adhesive. The 
analyses and rationale for these decisions are described in section 
IV.B of this preamble. As part of the technology review, we also 
identified a regulatory gap (a previously unregulated process) and are 
establishing a new standard to fill that gap as described in section 
III.C of this preamble.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and 
(3) for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations source category?

    During the technology review, we identified existing flame 
laminators as an unregulated process in the major source category. For 
major sources, the EPA is required to set technology-based standards 
for sources of HAP emissions that reflect the maximum reductions of HAP 
emissions achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and 
non-air health and environmental impacts). However, these standards 
must be no less stringent than the average emission performance of the 
best performing five sources for a source category with fewer than 30 
sources, as is the case here. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of 
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), consistent with the proposal, we are 
revising the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations NESHAP to include a MACT standard for existing source flame 
laminators. The analyses and rationale for this standard are described 
in section IV.C of this preamble.

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

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the major source 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP to remove and 
revise provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the court 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 (h)(1), holding 
that under 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. Previously, the 2003 Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations NESHAP included exemptions for standards during 
SSM. As explained in section IV.E of the January 2021 proposal preamble 
(86 FR 1868 at 1885, January 11, 2021), the EPA proposed that the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP would require 
that the standards always apply, consistent with the court decision in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    Table 7 to subpart MMMMM of 40 CFR part 63 (General Provisions 
applicability table) is being revised to change the specification of 
the requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We eliminated or 
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
eliminated SSM exemptions. The EPA also made other harmonizing changes 
to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language 
in the absence of the SSM exemptions. We proposed to remove the SSM 
exemptions such that the standards always apply because we determined 
that facilities in this source category can always meet the applicable 
emission standards in the NESHAP, including periods of startup and 
shutdown, without additional standards or work practices. We received 
no information to cause us to change our conclusion; therefore, the EPA 
is finalizing the removal of the SSM exemptions and is requiring that 
the standards always apply. The legal rationale and detailed changes 
for startup and shutdown periods that we are finalizing here are set 
forth in the January 11, 2021, preamble to the proposed rule. See 86 FR 
1868 at 1885 and 1886.
    Further, as proposed, the EPA is not including standards for 
malfunctions. As discussed in the proposal preamble, 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, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for 
malfunctions where feasible. See 86 FR 1868 at 1885 and 1886.

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

    The EPA is requiring owners or operators of flexible polyurethane 
foam fabrication operations major sources to submit electronic copies 
of certain required performance test reports, performance evaluation 
reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 
The final rule requires that performance test results and performance 
evaluation results be submitted using the Electronic Reporting Tool. 
For

[[Page 64390]]

semiannual reports, the final rule requires that owners or operators 
use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit information to 
CEDRI. The final version of the templates for these reports are located 
on the CEDRI website.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local, 
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. For a more 
thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, 
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for this action (Document ID 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0012).

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on November 18, 2021.
    Affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on 
or before January 11, 2021, must comply with all amendments, except for 
the electronic format for submitting compliance reports, no later than 
180 days after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, 
whichever is later. Affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after January 11, 2021, must comply with all 
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being finalized, 
except for the electronic format for submitting compliance reports, no 
later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, 
whichever is later. All affected sources must comply with the 
electronic compliance report requirements no later than either 180 days 
after the effective date of the final rule or once the report template 
for this subpart has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, 
whichever date is later. All affected facilities must continue to meet 
the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM, until the 
applicable compliance date of the amended rule.
    This final action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is the promulgation 
date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10). For existing sources, we 
are finalizing four changes that would impact ongoing compliance 
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM. As discussed elsewhere 
in this preamble, we are adding a numeric limit for HCl emissions from 
existing flame laminators. We are also adding a requirement that 
notifications, performance test results, and compliance reports be 
submitted electronically. Our experience with similar industries that 
are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary 
hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting 
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test 
these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ 
electronic reporting shows that a period of a minimum of 90 days, and, 
more typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to accomplish these 
revisions. For the final SSM revisions, we recognize that there are no 
facilities that are currently using the SSM provisions for new flame 
laminators, since there have not been any new sources since the 
standard was promulgated. As a result, we understand that no additional 
time is needed for compliance with the revised SSM provisions. Prior to 
proposal, we consulted with the regulated industry regarding the 
proposed limits for existing flame laminators and the requirement to 
conduct performance testing to demonstrate initial compliance within 
180 days of the publication of the final rule and no less than every 5 
years thereafter, to better understand the likely implications of the 
proposed revisions. Representatives of the company that owns the two 
impacted facilities indicated that performance testing could be done 
within the 180-day time frame for compliance. For the flame lamination 
unit existing sources that would be subject to the newly established 
emission limit, we understand that the facilities are able to meet the 
limit without add-on controls. However, we do recognize that facilities 
need time to conduct performance tests and demonstrate compliance with 
the emission limit.
    To reduce the complication that different compliance dates for 
individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an 
assortment of dates would impose, considering our assessment of the 
timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised 
requirements, the EPA is finalizing a period of 180 days after the 
regulation's effective date within which all affected sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before January 11, 2021, 
must be in compliance with the regulation's revised requirements, with 
the exception of the electronic reporting requirements.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations 
source category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication area source categories?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we 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 Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the major 
source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source 
category?
    We proposed that the health risks due to emissions of HAP from the 
major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source 
category are acceptable and that the NESHAP provides an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health and that no additional standards are 
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Table 1 of this 
preamble provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk 
assessment for the source category. More detailed information on the 
risk assessment can be found in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Source Category in Support of 
the 2021

[[Page 64391]]

Risk and Technology Review Final Rule in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQ for 
substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
    \4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was 
divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ 
values.

                           Table 1--Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Maximum individual      Estimated population at   Estimated annual cancer       Maximum chronic      Maximum screening
                                   cancer risk (in 1     increased risk of cancer    incidence (cases per       noncancer TOSHI \3\     acute noncancer
                                       million)              >= 1-in-1 million               year)          --------------------------       HQ \4\
       Risk assessment        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------                          ------------------
                                 Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on     Based on
                                  actual     allowable      actual     allowable      actual     allowable      actual     allowable    Based on actual
                                emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions    emissions       emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category..............            0            0            0            0            0            0        0.002        0.002         HQREL = <1
Whole Facility...............          0.1  ...........            0  ...........      0.00001  ...........          0.2  ...........  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the inhalation risk assessment using actual 
emissions data, as shown in Table 1 of this preamble, indicate that no 
carcinogens are emitted by this category. Therefore, the cancer MIR 
based on actual emissions (lifetime) is zero and the total estimated 
annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on 
actual emission levels is zero excess cancer cases per year. The 
maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) 
value based on actual emissions is 0.002 driven by HCl. The maximum 
screening acute noncancer HQREL value (off-facility site) is 0.003 
driven by HCl. No persistent and bio-accumulative HAP (PB-HAP) are 
emitted from the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations 
source category, therefore, a multipathway assessment was not 
conducted. A screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse 
environmental risk associated with emissions of HCl indicated that no 
ecological benchmarks were exceeded.
    As shown in Table 1, the maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 0.1-
in-1 million, driven by 2,4/2,6-toluene diisocyanate mixture (TDI) 
emissions from a vertical non-category point source and a non-category 
fugitive point source. The total estimated cancer incidence from the 
whole facility is 0.00001 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess 
case in every 100,000 years. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the 
source category is estimated to be 0.2, mainly driven by 2,4/2,6-TDI 
emissions from a vertical non-category point source and a non-category 
fugitive point source. Considering all the health risk information and 
factors discussed above, the EPA proposed that the risks are 
acceptable.
    No carcinogens are emitted by the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations source category. Therefore, there are no 
individuals in the exposed population with lifetime cancer risks above 
1-in-1 million as a result of actual or allowable emissions from this 
category. In addition, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based 
on actual and allowable emissions is well below 1 (0.002 and 0.2, 
respectively) and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-
facility site) is also well below 1 (0.003). Therefore, the EPA 
proposed that additional emissions controls for flexible polyurethane 
foam fabrication operations facilities are not necessary to provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition, based on 
our screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse 
environmental effects, we concluded that more stringent standards were 
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Considering 
all analyses, we did not propose any changes to the NESHAP based on the 
risk review. For more details regarding the risk review, see the 
proposal preamble (86 FR 1868 at 1876).
2. How did the risk review change for the major source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source category?
    The EPA has not made any changes to either the risk assessments or 
our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of 
safety, or adverse environmental effects for the major source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source category since the 
proposal was published on January 11, 2021 (86 FR 1868). We are 
finalizing the risk review as proposed with no changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    We received one comment in support of and one comment against the 
proposed residual risk review and our determination is that no 
revisions are warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the source 
category. The comment in support of the determination noted that the 
residual risk review was reasonable and supported by the available 
data. The comment opposed to the determination was related to a concern 
that the EPA may not have included all HAP emitted from the source 
category, particularly from flame retardants. After review of these 
comments, and with no information from which to conclude that any HAP 
emissions are missing from the data or analyses performed, we 
determined that no changes are needed to the risk assessment. The 
comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rule for the 
Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication NESHAP and the 
NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area 
Sources, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard- setting approach, with an 
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers 
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and 
includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' 
(see 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk factors 
in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, 
cancer incidence, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI, the maximum 
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of 
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk 
estimation uncertainties.
    In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the 
emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health ``in consideration of all health

[[Page 64392]]

information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id.
    For the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major 
source category, the risk analysis indicates that no carcinogens are 
emitted by the source category, and therefore, there is no cancer risk. 
In addition, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value based on actual 
and allowable emissions is well below 1 and the maximum screening acute 
noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) is also well below 1. In 
addition, the screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse 
environmental effects indicated that that no ecological benchmarks were 
exceeded.
    We evaluated all comments on the risk review and determined that no 
changes to the review are needed. For the reasons explained in the 
proposal, we determined that the risks from the major source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source category are 
acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health, and more stringent standards are not necessary 
to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA 
section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual risk review as 
proposed and readopting the standards for the major source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source category.

B. Technology Review for the Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations Source Category and the Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Production and Fabrication Area Source Categories

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the major 
source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Source 
Category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication 
area source categories?
    During the technology review, one development in a practice, 
process, or control technology was identified for loop slitter use in 
the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major source 
category. In addition, we identified existing flame laminators as an 
unregulated process in the major source category, and we proposed 
standards for those sources under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), as 
described in section IV.C of this preamble.
    At the time of the development of the NESHAP, the EPA found that 
the foam fabrication industry had effectively discontinued the use of 
adhesives containing methylene chloride, which was the primary HAP in 
the adhesives used, and had switched to other adhesives that did not 
contain methylene chloride and contained only small amounts of other 
HAP. As a result, for both existing and new loop slitters, the 
definition of HAP-based adhesive included in the 2003 rule was an 
adhesive containing 5 percent (by weight) or greater of HAP. As part of 
the technology review, we reviewed other air toxics MACT standards and 
noted that several other NESHAP, developed both before and after the 
major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP, 
include a definition of non-HAP adhesive or coating (where the coating 
definition included adhesives) with a lower percentage of HAP content 
than that of the definition included in the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations rule. Additionally, through review of 
information provided by industry, we found that the current adhesives 
used in loop slitting operations are less than 1-percent HAP content by 
total weight. Based on the current industry standards of adhesive usage 
containing less than 1-percent HAP and the definition for HAP-based 
adhesive from similar source categories regulating adhesives, we 
proposed to revise the definition of ``HAP-based adhesive'' to read: 
``an adhesive containing 1 percent (by weight) or more of HAP, 
according to EPA Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63) or another 
approved alternative.''
    We also proposed to amend 40 CFR 63.8802(a)(1)(i) and (a)(3)(i), 
which describe how to determine the mass fraction of HAP in each 
material used, to remove references to Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 
1910.1200(d)(4). The references to 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) were intended 
to specify which compounds must be included in calculating the total 
HAP content of a coating material if the compounds are present at 0.1-
percent or greater by mass; however, 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been 
amended and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. 
We proposed to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in a proposed new Table 8 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart MMMMM) of those HAP that must be included in 
calculating total HAP content of a coating material if they are present 
at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We proposed to include HAP in this 
table if they were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized Chronic Dose-
Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments (May 9, 2014), as a 
``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or ``possible 
human carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 
(EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\5\ or as ``carcinogenic to humans,'' 
``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or with ``suggestive evidence 
of carcinogenic potential'' according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen 
Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005).\6\ Detailed 
information of the technology review can be found in the memorandum 
titled Technology Review for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Manufacturing Source Category, which is available in the docket for 
this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
    \6\ See https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelinescarcinogen-risk-assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source categories, we found the 
listed urban HAP methylene chloride is no longer used within either 
source category. Additionally, we did not find any advances in 
technologies during our review of the source categories. Detailed 
information of the technology review can be found in the memorandum 
titled Technology Review for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 
and Fabrication Area Source Categories, which is available in the 
docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0004).
2. How did the technology review change for the major source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Source Category and the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area source 
categories?
    The EPA has not made any changes to the technology review since the 
proposal was published on January 11, 2021. We are finalizing the 
technology review as proposed with no changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology reviews, and what 
are our responses?
    We received comments in support of the proposed technology reviews 
and the revisions we proposed to the definition of HAP-based adhesive 
resulting from the findings of the

[[Page 64393]]

technology review. All commenters supported the proposed revision to 
the definition of HAP-based adhesive. One commenter noted that the 
proposed revision should not have an adverse impact on loop-slitting 
and that it is supported by the industry. Two commenters specifically 
supported this revision in its effect in limiting backsliding. After 
review of these comments, we determined that no changes are needed to 
the technology reviews or the proposed revised definition of HAP-based 
adhesive. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rule 
for the Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication NESHAP and 
the NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication 
Area Sources, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    We evaluated all comments on the technology reviews and determined 
that no changes to the reviews are needed. Commenters identified no 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies advances 
in technologies to consider, beyond the technology-related development 
identified in the proposal (industry practice of using lower-HAP 
adhesive in loop-slitting operations). Therefore, pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology reviews as 
proposed.

C. Actions Taken Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)

1. What did we propose for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations Source Category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed to establish 
a numeric limit in the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations major source NESHAP for HCl emissions from existing flame 
laminators. Through the technology review, we identified these units as 
sources of HAP emissions that did not have MACT standards in the 
NESHAP. For the four existing source flame lamination units in the 
source category, HCl emissions data from only one of these units is 
available, and the proposed MACT floor was based on the HCl data for 
this unit. To determine the level of the MACT floor, the Upper 
Prediction Limit method was used to account for variability in flame 
laminator emissions performance, and the MACT floor was calculated at 
1.45 pounds per hour of HCl.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for Existing 
Flame Laminators in the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Source Category (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also evaluated whether a beyond-the-floor emissions limit 
would be appropriate; specifically, we evaluated whether the 
incremental emissions reduction achievable with a venturi scrubber 
would be cost effective. The venturi scrubber was the only control 
technology in use at flame lamination sources that was identified by 
the EPA with the initial promulgation of the NESHAP, and no other 
developments in control technologies were identified in the review of 
these standards. The EPA estimated that the average incremental cost 
per ton of HCl emissions reduced with this technology would be 
approximately $26,000 and found that this would not be cost effective 
for the control of HCl. Therefore, we proposed that floor-level MACT 
controls are appropriate for existing flame laminators.
2. What changed since proposal?
    In the final rule, we have made revisions in several sections to 
clarify that the flame lamination emission limit applies to each flame 
lamination line individually. As 40 CFR 63.8784(b)(2) states that the 
flame lamination affected source is the collection of all flame 
lamination lines, these revisions will make it clear that the limit is 
for each flame lamination line within an affected source rather than 
the collection of all flame lamination lines of an affected source.
    For existing flame lamination units, we have also revised the final 
rule to include a more appropriate method of calculating the HCl 
emissions rate. In the proposed rule, we proposed to require existing 
sources to use the same method of calculating the HCl emissions rate as 
that required for new and reconstructed sources. However, while that 
method is appropriate for determining compliance with an emissions 
limit that requires a certain emissions percentage reduction using a 
control device, it is not appropriate for the existing source emissions 
limit that requires emissions to be below a specified numeric value, 
regardless of the use of a control device. Therefore, to correct this 
deficiency in the final rule, we have added an HCl calculation method 
that is appropriate to the emissions limit format and is based on the 
concentration of HCl and the volumetric flow rate of the flame 
lamination line's outlet gas stream to the atmosphere.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    Comment: Several commenters support the establishment of emission 
standards for HCl emissions from existing flame lamination units; 
however, one commenter states that the proposed limits need to be 
strengthened. The commenter observes that there are four existing flame 
lamination units and that due to data availability, the EPA used data 
from only one of these to set the proposed MACT floor. The commenter 
states the EPA should have required the other sources to provide the 
necessary data for analysis and that there is no indication that the 
one source for which the EPA has data represents the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing sources. The commenter adds 
that the EPA used the upper prediction limit (UPL) approach, which 
moves the floor further from the average emissions limitation achieved 
by the best-performing sources. Due to these aspects of the proposed 
MACT floor, the commenter states that the EPA has not met the CAA 
requirements to set the limits at the maximum achievable degree.
    The commenter also states that the EPA fails to meet the beyond-
the-floor requirements by failing to assure the maximum achievable 
degree of emission limitation. According to the commenter, the EPA 
decided not to require additional reductions beyond the floor purely 
based on cost data from its analysis conducted for the proposal of the 
NESHAP in 2001. The commenter states that the EPA did not provide 
evidence to support its assumption that the cost effectiveness today 
would be similar to what it was in 2001 after adjusting for inflation 
and that the EPA provided no information to support its claim that 
nothing has substantially changed with the control technology of a 
venturi scrubber since that time. The commenter adds that the EPA did 
not consider the health benefits of the emissions reduction.
    Response: In setting the MACT floor for these sources, we have used 
all data available to the Agency. As provided for by CAA section 
112(d)(3)(B), this limit was set at the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing sources for which the Administrator has 
or could reasonably obtain emissions information. In this instance, one 
of the four flame lamination units in operation in the source category 
has been tested for HAP emissions. Therefore, this one emissions

[[Page 64394]]

test, which represents performance of 25 percent of the flame 
lamination units in operation, represents the whole of the data 
available for these emissions sources and constitutes the basis for the 
MACT floor. Based on the information above, the EPA determined that the 
emissions information on which the MACT floor is based is 
representative of the source category. While it may have been possible 
for the EPA to require the facilities to conduct further HAP emissions 
testing to use in setting the MACT floor, due to several factors 
(including the additional time this would have added to the rulemaking 
process, the availability of at least one emissions test, and the 
expected types and levels of emissions expected from these units), the 
EPA determined, consistent with the Agency's discretion under the CAA, 
not to require additional emissions testing to be performed. 
Additionally, we note that while the commenter is concerned that the 
emissions limit set using the available data for one source may not be 
as stringent as the average of the best performing sources in the 
source category, the Administrator is required to set standards based 
on available data.
    We disagree with the commenter that use of the UPL moves the floor 
further from the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing sources. To develop the proposed HCl MACT standard for 
existing flame lamination units, the EPA used the UPL statistical 
methodology, which the EPA has used in many rulemakings and which was 
upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 
579 (D.C. Cir. 2016). That is, the best performers, and their level of 
performance, are determined after accounting for sources' normal 
operating variability. The UPL represents the value below which one can 
expect the mean of a specified number of future observations (e.g., 3-
run average) to fall, for the specified level of confidence, based upon 
the results of an independent sample from the same population.
    The UPL approach allows for the development of the average 
emissions value that the source is achieving, given that the MACT floor 
is derived from short-term emissions test data and such data are not 
representative of the range of operating conditions that the facility 
faces on a day-to-day basis. In statistical terms, each test produces a 
limited data sample, not a complete enumeration of the available data 
for performance of the unit over a long period of time. Therefore, the 
EPA needs to adjust the short-term data to account for these varying 
conditions to properly estimate the source's performance over time.
    In calculating the UPL that we proposed as the MACT floor for 
existing flame lamination lines, we tested the dataset (three runs) for 
skewness and kurtosis to determine that the non-normal (lognormal) data 
distribution is the best representation of the sample set, and we used 
the UPL equation appropriate to that data distribution. Because the 
floor is based on the performance of a single unit, our evaluation of 
the data was limited to ensuring that the emission limit is a 
reasonable estimate of the performance of the unit based on our 
knowledge about the process and controls. The wide range in HCl 
emissions shown by the available data for this best-performing unit 
indicates that variability is significant, and we determined that the 
emission limit is representative of the actual performance of the unit 
upon which the limit is based, considering variability.
    We note that after MACT standards are promulgated, we are required 
to review those standards periodically, and for such reviews, we 
typically have significant additional HAP emissions data from the 
intervening years of compliance with which to further assess the actual 
performance of the various emission sources. We anticipate that this 
will be the case for existing flame lamination lines.
    As part of the technology review, a search for information on 
venturi scrubbers was undertaken and no new information on their 
performance or costs was found that would indicate that our previous 
cost analysis is not representative of current costs. No information 
was received during the comment period to suggest that these 
assumptions were incorrect.
    We concluded in the residual risk assessment that risks from the 
source category are acceptable and that the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety. The addition of new MACT standards for HCl for 
existing sources will further reduce risks from the source category.
    Comment: One commenter asserts that the EPA, in setting emission 
standards for uncontrolled HAP emissions for this source category, must 
include emission standards for 1-bromopropane (1-BP, also known as n-
propyl bromide) as a ``necessary'' revision to satisfy its legal 
obligation in this rulemaking, citing Louisiana Environmental Action 
Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (LEAN). The commenter 
notes that the EPA has determined that 1-BP is an ``air pollutant'' 
that ``may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human 
health'' and that it therefore qualifies as a HAP, and the commenter 
points out that the EPA, having granted 1-BP for listing as a HAP, has 
not yet completed that listing process.
    Noting that at least one source reported using 1-BP, the commenter 
argues that the EPA should gather further information and ensure all 
sources meet emission standards for 1-BP that satisfy Sec.  7412(d) and 
(f). The commenter cited a recent risk evaluation under TSCA, in which 
``EPA has determined that risk from emissions to the ambient air of 1-
BP could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions 
taken under the CAA.'' The commenter believes the EPA acted unlawfully 
and in an arbitrary manner by failing in this rulemaking to assess 1-BP 
emissions and propose emission standards for 1-BP.
    Response: The EPA does not agree that the LEAN decision compels 
regulation of 1-BP for this sector, because that decision only goes to 
timing; the EPA must address any regulatory gaps (that is, any 
unregulated HAP emissions from the source category which the EPA is 
required to regulate) when it conducts a technology review for that 
category. For this source category, the EPA received information 
indicating that no major sources are using 1-BP and few to no area 
sources may be using 1-BP in small quantities as an equipment cleaner. 
At this time, there is no requirement to set standards for 1-BP as part 
of the review for major sources in this category during the CAA section 
112(d)(6) technology review because 1-BP is not emitted by any major 
sources in this source category. As for the area sources, the EPA need 
only review the standards set for the urban HAP for which this area 
source category was listed under CAA section 112(c)(3), which is 
methylene chloride. We are not obligated to set standards for other 
listed HAP that are emitted from this area source category.\8\ See 
Desert Citizens Against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F.3d 524, 525-26 (D.C. 
Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA notes that while 1-BP is not yet a listed HAP, it 
soon will be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the actions taken 
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)?
    We evaluated all comments received regarding the proposed standard 
for existing flame lamination units and determined that no changes to 
the level of the standard are needed. We conclude that the standard, 
which is based on the UPL and emissions data

[[Page 64395]]

from a single unit, represents the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best performing sources for which the Administrator has or could 
reasonably obtain emissions information. A more detailed explanation 
for this decision may be found in responses provided earlier in this 
document. Through further review of the proposed rule, we determined 
that clarifications are needed for the final rule language to ensure it 
is clear the flame lamination emissions limits apply to each individual 
flame lamination line, and we have revised the final rule accordingly. 
In addition, to correct a deficiency in the proposed rule's HCl 
emissions calculation method for existing source flame lamination 
units, we have added an appropriate calculation method in the final 
rule.

D. Removal of the SSM Exemptions

1. What did we propose for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations NESHAP?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the major source Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP to remove the 
provisions related to SSM to ensure that they are consistent with the 
court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
that standards always apply. As detailed in the January 2021 proposal, 
we proposed to change the requirements for SSM by removing the 
exemption for new flame laminators from the requirements to meet the 
standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop 
and implement an SSM plan. The EPA proposed revisions to Table 7 of 
subpart MMMMM, The Applicability of General Provisions, to remove SSM 
exemptions and plan development for new flame lamination sources.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We determined that no changes were necessary to the proposed 
revised requirements for SSM periods. Therefore, we are finalizing the 
revised provisions related to SSM periods as proposed (86 FR 1868 at 
1885, January 11, 2021).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    We received comments in support of the proposed revisions regarding 
SSM periods. Generally, commenters supported the proposed removal of 
the exemption for periods of SSM and the elimination of the requirement 
to develop an SSM plan, recognizing that these changes are consistent 
with court decisions requiring that the CAA standards always apply. 
After review of these comments, we determined that no changes are 
needed to the proposed revisions regarding SSM periods. The comments 
and our specific responses can be found in the document, Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rule for the Major Source 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication NESHAP and the NESHAP for 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources, 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to 
remove the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed 
rule, we determined that the proposed removal of the SSM exemptions is 
required to be consistent with the 2008 court decision that standards 
always apply. Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for removing 
the SSM exemptions as proposed.

E. Electronic Reporting

1. What did we propose?
    We proposed amendments to the major source Flexible Polyurethane 
Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP to require owners or operators to 
submit electronic copies of initial notifications, notifications of 
compliance status, performance test reports, performance evaluation 
reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX) using CEDRI. Additionally, we proposed two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided at the discretion 
of the Administrator. The EPA proposed these extensions to protect 
owners or operators from noncompliance in cases where they are unable 
to successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons 
outside of their control, including CDX and CEDRI outages and force 
majeure events, such as acts of nature, war, or terrorism.
2. What changed since proposal?
    We determined that no changes were necessary to the proposed 
requirements for owners or operators of flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication operations major sources to submit initial notifications, 
notifications of compliance status, performance test reports, 
performance evaluation reports, and semiannual reports electronically 
using CEDRI. Therefore, we are finalizing the electronic reporting 
provisions as proposed (86 FR 1886, January 11, 2021).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
    The EPA received one comment that generally supported the proposed 
amendment to require electronic reporting but was opposed to the force 
majeure provisions due to concern that those provision would allow for 
unreported exceedances to go unchecked. After review and consideration 
of this comment, we determined that no changes are needed to the 
electronic reporting requirements or their force majeure provisions. 
This comment and our specific response can be found in the document, 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rule for the 
Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication NESHAP and the 
NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area 
Sources, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach to electronic 
reporting?
    We are finalizing as proposed a requirement in the major source 
NESHAP that owners or operators of flexible polyurethane foam 
fabrication operations submit electronic copies of notifications, 
performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance reports using 
CEDRI. We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow 
facility owners or operators a process to request extensions for 
submitting electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of 
the facility (i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a 
force majeure event). Such extensions are intended to be available only 
in extraordinary circumstances; they are limited in duration and do not 
relieve owners or operators of their reporting obligations. The 
electronic reporting amendments will increase the ease and efficiency 
of data submittal for owners and operators of major source flexible 
polyurethane foam fabrication operations and will make the data more 
accessible to regulators and the public.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    Currently, there are three major sources operating in the United 
States that are subject to the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations NESHAP. The affected sources under the NESHAP 
include flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant sites that operate 
loop slitters and/or flame laminators. Facilities that use loop slitter 
adhesive processes would be

[[Page 64396]]

required to comply with a ban on the use of adhesives containing air 
toxics. However, the EPA estimates that current air toxic emissions 
from loop slitter adhesive users are essentially zero as the result of 
changes in adhesive composition required by OSHA's permissible exposure 
limit for methylene chloride that was enacted prior to the promulgation 
of the original MACT standard. Additionally, the EPA estimates that 
current air toxic emissions from flame laminators for the entire source 
category are less than 3.5 tpy.
    Currently, there are approximately 32 area sources subject to the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication NESHAP for area 
sources. The area source standard only regulates methylene chloride 
emissions, and, similar to the major source standards, emissions of 
methylene chloride are essentially zero, as required by OSHA's 
permissible exposure limit for methylene chloride that was enacted 
prior to the promulgation of the original GACT standards. Based on 
information provided by industry, there are no emissions of methylene 
chloride from these sources. For detailed information, please see the 
memorandum titled Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production and Fabrication Area Sources, available in the docket for 
this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0004).

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Current estimated emissions from the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Operations source category are approximately 3.5 tpy. We do 
not estimate any HAP emission reductions from the final amendment 
adding MACT limits for existing flame laminators nor from the final 
amendment revising the definition of HAP-based adhesives for loop 
slitters. Both revisions reflect current practices.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The final amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations NESHAP for major sources are expected to have minimal cost 
impacts. The costs are associated with periodic emissions performance 
testing, recordkeeping and reporting, electronic reporting, and 
reviewing the proposed rule. Three major source facilities are affected 
by these costs, although only two of them are affected by the emissions 
performance testing requirement. The periodic performance test is 
required every 5 years, but only for major source facilities that 
perform flame lamination. Most of the information requirements in the 
final rule are unchanged from those of the proposed rule. However, 
after proposal of this action, the EPA revised its cost estimates to 
incorporate updated information about the costs associated with 
reporting and performance testing for sources in the flame lamination 
subcategory. The cost estimates are slightly higher than at proposal. 
The revised cost estimates reflect that a performance test is required 
for each flame lamination line at a facility, although the labor 
required for each test is estimated to be lower than at proposal. See 
the Economic Impact Analysis in the docket and the accompanying 
workbook for the updated assumptions and cost estimates (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572).
    For the two affected facilities with flame lamination lines, the 
year 1 costs are estimated to be about $22,000 per facility, while the 
undiscounted costs related to reporting and recordkeeping in the 
following years are estimated at about $2,600 per facility per year 
except for year 6 when another emissions test is required. The 
undiscounted costs in year 6 are estimated to be about $17,000 per 
facility for the sources with flame laminators. For the major source 
that does not perform flame lamination and thus does not need to 
fulfill the testing requirement, the costs in year 1 are estimated to 
be about $6,000, while the undiscounted costs in the following years 
are estimated at about $2,600 per year.
    Because the final amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production and Fabrication Area Sources NESHAP impose no new 
requirements on area sources, there will be no cost impacts for area 
sources.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The final amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 
Operations NESHAP for major sources and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Production and Fabrication NESHAP for area sources are not expected to 
have market impacts. Over a 10-year timeframe from 2022 to 2031, the 
net present value of the estimated cost impacts is about $135,000 at a 
3 percent discount rate and $121,000 at a 7 percent discount rate in 
2019 dollars. The equivalent annualized value of the cost impacts is 
about $16,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $17,000 at a 7 percent 
discount rate. Since there are no expected costs for area sources, and 
the estimated costs for major sources are minimal, no significant 
economic impacts are anticipated due to the final amendments. For more 
information regarding the facility-level cost estimates as well as the 
net present value and equivalent annualized value estimates, see the 
memorandum titled Economic Impact Analysis for Final Residual Risk and 
Technology Review of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations, 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0572).

E. What are the benefits?

    This action will result in improvements to the rule and prevent 
backsliding. In general, backsliding is when a source uses a process, 
equipment, and/or ingredients that the industry in general has moved 
beyond in favor of processes, equipment, and/or ingredients with fewer 
potential adverse environmental impacts. Specifically, the final 
amendments codify existing industry practices both for existing flame 
laminators and for new and existing sources that use adhesives with 
loop slitters. The final amendments also revise the standards such that 
they always apply. Additionally, the final amendments requiring 
electronic submittal of initial notifications, performance test 
results, and semiannual reports will increase the usefulness of the 
data, are in keeping with current trends of data availability, will 
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, 
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations 
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from 
environmental harms--specifically, minority populations, low-income 
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was signed to advance racial equity 
and support underserved communities through federal government actions 
(86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines environmental justice 
as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to 
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 
regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines the term fair 
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a 
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including 
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of 
industrial, governmental, and

[[Page 64397]]

commercial operations or programs and policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In recognizing that minority and low-income 
populations often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and 
risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of protecting them from 
adverse public health and environmental effects of air pollution.
    Based on an analysis of exposed populations, the EPA determined 
that the source categories do not pose a disproportionately high 
adverse health impact on minority populations and/or low-income 
populations, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, 
January 20, 2021). The EPA remains committed to engaging with 
communities and stakeholders throughout the development of air 
pollution regulations.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the major source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we also evaluated 
the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the 
major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source 
category across different demographic groups within the populations 
living near facilities.
    The results of the demographic analysis for the major source 
category indicate that the minority population (being the total 
population minus the white population) is slightly higher within 5 km 
of the three facilities than the national percentage (40 percent versus 
38 percent). This difference is accounted for by the larger African 
American population around the facilities (17 percent versus 12 percent 
nationally). In addition, the percentage of the population living 
within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the 
corresponding national percentage for the demographic groups, ``Ages 0 
to 17'' and ``Below the Poverty Level.'' When examining the risk levels 
of those exposed to emissions from Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk 
at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 
1. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis 
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Source Category, available in 
this docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0006).

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    The EPA determined that the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to 
children. The health risk assessments for this action are contained in 
the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Source Category in Support of the 2021 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule available in the docket (Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in rule have been submitted 
for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request 
(ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 
2027.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, 
and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The ICR is 
specific to information collection associated with the Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations source category, through 
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM. (The subject rulemaking 
imposes no new information collection associated with either the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production area source category or the 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication area source category.) We are 
finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM, in the form of: 
Requiring periodic (every 5 years) performance tests at major sources 
that perform flame lamination; eliminating the SSM plan and reporting 
requirements; including reporting requirements for deviations in the 
semiannual (periodic) report; and including the requirement for 
electronic submittal of reports. In addition, the number of facilities 
subject to the standards has changed. The number of respondents was 
reduced from 20 to 3 based on consultation with industry 
representatives and state/local agencies.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of flexible 
polyurethane foam fabrication operations subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMMM.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart MMMMM).
    Estimated number of respondents: 3 facilities.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule 
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual 
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 113 
hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 
years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 51 hours (per 
year) for the Agency. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for responding facilities to comply with all requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
$21,600 (rounded, per year). The total operation and maintenance costs 
associated with performance test requirements, averaged over the 3 
years of this ICR, is estimated to be $10,100 per year. The total 
average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments 
are final is estimated to be $2,500.
    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 OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is

[[Page 64398]]

any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency 
may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory 
burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on the small entities subject to the rule. As finalized, this action 
will impose new requirements only on major sources, and none of the 
major sources in the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations 
source category are considered a small entity. Because this action 
imposes no new requirements on area sources, there will be no 
significant impact on any small entities among area sources. We have, 
therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory 
burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in 
the industries that would be affected by this action nor are there any 
adverse health or environmental effects from this action. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 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's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections IV.A of this preamble.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low- income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in the technical 
reports titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic 
Factors for Populations Living Near Flexible Polyurethane Foam 
Fabrication Source Category Operations and Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Source Category in Support 
of the 2021 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, available in the 
docket for this action (Document ID EPA-HQ- OAR-2020-0572-0006).

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is amended 
as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.8784 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (e) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) If you add one or more flame lamination lines at a plant site 
where flame lamination lines already exist, the added line(s) shall be 
a new affected source and meet new source requirements if the added 
line(s) are at a flexible polyurethane foam fabrication plant site that 
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 
tons or more per year of any combination of HAP.
* * * * *
    (e) An affected source is existing if it commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before August 8, 2001.

0
3. Section 63.8786 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
this subpart according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, 
as applicable.
    (1) If you have an existing loop slitter affected source, you must 
comply with the emission standards for existing sources no later than 
April 14, 2004.
    (2) If you have an existing flame lamination affected source, you 
must comply with the emission standards for existing sources no later 
than May 17, 2022.
* * * * *
    (f) You must comply with the electronic reporting requirements 
according to paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
    (1) You must comply with the performance test and CMS performance 
evaluation requirements of Sec.  63.8818(j) on or before May 17, 2022.
    (2) You must comply with the compliance report requirements of

[[Page 64399]]

Sec.  63.8818(k) on or before May 17, 2022 or once the report template 
for this subpart has been available on the CEDRI website for 1 year, 
whichever date is later.

0
4. Section 63.8794 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c) and (d);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text.
    The revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) For each flame lamination affected source, you must be in 
compliance with the requirements in this subpart at all times.
    (c) At all times, you must 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 you 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.
    (d) For flame lamination affected sources in Sec.  63.8786 using a 
control device to comply with the emission limitations in Table 1 to 
this subpart, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and 
maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment during the 
period between the compliance date specified for your flame lamination 
affected source in Sec.  63.8786 and the date upon which continuous 
compliance monitoring systems required by Sec.  63.8810(c) have been 
installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have been 
set.
* * * * *
    (f) For each monitoring system required by Sec.  63.8810(c) for 
flame lamination sources, you must develop and submit for approval a 
site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.8798 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) For each flame lamination affected source, you must conduct 
performance tests by the compliance date that is specified for your 
source in Sec.  63.8786 and according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.7(a)(2).
    (c) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with the flame lamination emissions limitations in Table 1 
to this subpart no less frequently than every 5 years from the date of 
the last performance test.

0
6. Section 63.8800 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) introductory text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as (g);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (f); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g) introductory text.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in paragraph (c) of this section and under the specific 
conditions in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (c) You must conduct each performance test under conditions 
representative of normal operations. You may not conduct performance 
tests during periods of SSM. The owner or operator must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the 
owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 
tests.
* * * * *
    (e) For new and reconstructed affected sources, you must determine 
the percent reduction of HAP emissions during the performance test 
according to paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) For existing affected sources, you must determine the HCl 
emissions rate according to paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Calculate the concentration of HCl in the vent outlet to the 
atmosphere or at the control device outlet, if a control device is 
used, using the procedures in the specified test method.
    (2) Determine the vent outlet gas stream volumetric flow rate or if 
a control device is used, the control device outlet gas stream 
volumetric flow rate, using the procedures in the specified test 
method.
    (3) Calculate the HCl emission rate for the period of the 
performance test using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18NO21.080

Where:

EHCl = Emission rate of HCl, lbs/hr.
C= average HCl concentration of vent or control device outlet stream 
for all test runs, lb/dscft.
AOF = average outlet volumetric flow rate of gas stream, dry basis, 
dscft/hr.

    (g) You must also meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.8802 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 
(3)(i) to read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Include in the HAP total each HAP in Table 8 of this subpart 
that is measured at 0.1 percent by weight or more and any other HAP 
that is measured at 1.0 percent by weight or more. Express the weight 
fraction of each HAP you measure as a value truncated to four places 
after the decimal point (for example, 0.1234).
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Include in the HAP total each HAP in Table 8 of this subpart 
that is present at 0.1 percent by weight or more and any other HAP that 
is present at 1.0 percent by weight or more.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.8810 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory 
text, (c) introductory text and (c)(1) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) If you own or operate a flame lamination affected source, you 
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section if you use a scrubber, or paragraph (b)(4) of this section if 
you use any other control device.
* * * * *

[[Page 64400]]

    (c) If you own or operate a control device to meet the emissions 
limitations for a flame lamination affected source, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Except for periods of monitoring-associated repairs and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.8812 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text.
    The revisions read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission limit and each operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this 
subpart that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the 
operating limits in this subpart. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8818.
* * * * *
    (e) You must meet the following requirements if you are complying 
with the adhesive use ban for loop slitter adhesive use described in 
Sec.  63.8790(a).
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.8816 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (f), (g) 
introductory text, and (h)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8816   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (d) If you own or operate a flame lamination affected source, 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as 
required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
* * * * *
    (f) If you own or operate a flame lamination affected source, 
submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii) that includes the results of the performance test 
conducted according to the requirements in Table 3 to this subpart. You 
must submit the notification before the close of business on the 60th 
calendar day following the completion of the performance test according 
to Sec.  63.10(d)(2).
    (g) For each flame lamination affected source, the Notification of 
Compliance Status must also include the information in paragraphs 
(g)(1) and (2) that applies to you.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) A list of each adhesive used at the affected source, its HAP 
content (percent by weight), and the manufacturer or supplier of each.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.8818 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (f);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (i); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (j) through (m).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.8818   What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each 
compliance report for flame lamination affected sources semiannually 
according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) The compliance report for flame lamination affected sources 
required by Sec.  63.8810(c) to conduct continuous monitoring must also 
contain the following information in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control in accordance with the monitoring plan, a statement that there 
were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control during the 
reporting period.
    (2) If there were periods during which the CPMS was out-of-control 
in accordance with the monitoring plan, the date, time, and duration of 
each out-of-control period.
* * * * *
    (j) For Performance Test and CMS Performance Evaluation Reports, 
beginning on May 17, 2022, within 60 days after the date of completing 
each performance test or CMS performance evaluation (as defined in 
Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, the owner or operator must submit 
the results of the performance test or CMS performance evaluation 
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test or the performance evaluation of CMS measuring 
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format generated 
using the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file 
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on 
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test or the performance evaluation of 
CMS measuring RATA pollutants by methods that are not supported by the 
ERT, must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the 
EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). Do not use CEDRI to 
submit information you claim as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI 
cannot later be claimed CBI. Although we do not expect persons to 
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed 
to be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed 
on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly 
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD 
C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the 
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described 
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. All CBI claims must be 
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 
114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and 
the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. 
Thus, emissions

[[Page 64401]]

data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (k) When submitting reports electronically, on and after the date 
specified in Sec.  63.8786(f)(2), you must submit reports to the EPA 
via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the information submitted through 
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use 
CEDRI to submit information you claim as confidential business 
information (CBI). Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be 
claimed CBI. You must use the appropriate electronic report template on 
the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become 
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. Unless the Administrator 
or delegated state agency or other authority has approved a different 
schedule for submission of reports, the report must be submitted by the 
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which 
the report is submitted. Although we do not expect persons to assert a 
claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim, submit a complete 
report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report 
must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. 
Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 
electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the 
electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 
to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph 
(k). All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (l) For claims of EPA system outage, when you are required to 
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with 
the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you 
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (7) of 
this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (m) For claims of force majeure, when you are required to 
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may 
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the 
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must 
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
12. Section 63.8820 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.8820   What records must I keep?

* * * * *
    (b) For each flame lamination affected source, you must also keep 
the following records specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Records of performance tests, as required in Sec.  
63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (2) Records of the operating parameter values required in Sec.  
63.8810(b).
    (3) The records specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) The number of deviations. For each deviation, record the date, 
time, cause, and duration of the deviation.
    (ii) For each deviation, record and retain a list of the affected 
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated 
pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.8794(c), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.8830 is amended by revising the definitions of 
``Deviation'' and ``HAP-based adhesive'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.8830   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *

[[Page 64402]]

    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit); or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) in this subpart, regardless of whether such failure is permitted 
by this subpart.
* * * * *
    HAP-based adhesive means an adhesive containing 1.0 percent by 
weight or more of any individual or combination HAP listed in Table 8 
to this subpart or 1.0 percent by weight or more of any other 
individual HAP, according to information from the supplier or 
manufacturer of the material, EPA Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 
63) or another approved alternative.
* * * * *

0
14. Table 1 to subpart MMMMM is amended by revising entry 3 to read as 
follows:

          Table 1 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Emission Limits
As stated in Sec.   63.8790(a), you must comply with the emission limits
                         in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
3. Each existing flame lamination        Emit no more than 1.45 pounds
 affected source.                         per hour of HCl per flame
                                          lamination line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
15. Table 2 to subpart MMMMM is amended by revising the table title and 
introductory text to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Operating Limits for Existing, New,
           or Reconstructed Flame Lamination Affected Sources
   As stated in Sec.   63.8790(b), you must comply with the applicable
                operating limits in the following table:
 
 
 
 
 

* * * * *

0
16. Table 3 to subpart MMMMM is revised to read as follows:

 Table 3 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Performance Test Requirements for
    Existing, New, or Reconstructed Flame Lamination Affected Sources
 As stated in Sec.   63.8800, you must comply with the requirements for
performance tests for flame lamination affected sources in the following
table using the requirements in rows 1 through 5 of the table if you are
   measuring HCl and using a scrubber, row 6 for new or reconstructed
 sources measuring HCN and using a scrubber, and row 7 if you are using
   any other control device. For existing sources not using a control
  device, you must comply with row 8 and rows 1 through 4 of the table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For each existing, new, or
reconstructed flame lamination                        According to the
 affected source, you must . .     Using . . .           following
               .                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port's       Method 1 or 1A in  Sampling sites must
 location and the number of      appendix A to      be located at the
 traverse ports.                 part 60 of this    inlet and outlet of
                                 chapter.           the scrubber and
                                                    prior to any
                                                    releases to the
                                                    atmosphere.
2. Determine velocity.........  Method 2, 2A, 2C,
                                 2D, 2F, or 2G in
                                 appendix A to
                                 part 60 of this
                                 chapter..
3. Determine gas molecular      Not applicable...  Assume a molecular
 weight.                                            weight of 29 (after
                                                    moisture correction)
                                                    for calculation
                                                    purposes.
4. Measure moisture content of  Method 4 in
 the stack gas.                  appendix A to
                                 part 60 of this
                                 chapter..
5. Measure HCl concentration..  Method 26A in      i. For new or
                                 appendix A to      reconstructed
                                 part 60 of this    sources, determine
                                 chapter.           the HCl reduction
                                                    efficiency of the
                                                    control device using
                                                    Method 26A and the
                                                    procedures specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.8800(e).
                                                   ii. For existing
                                                    sources, determine
                                                    the HCl emission
                                                    rate using Method
                                                    26A and the
                                                    procedures specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.8800(f).
                                                   iii. Collect scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate,
                                                    scrubber effluent
                                                    pH, and pressure
                                                    drop (pressure drop
                                                    data only required
                                                    for venturi
                                                    scrubbers) every 15
                                                    minutes during the
                                                    entire duration of
                                                    each 1-hour test
                                                    run, and determine
                                                    the average scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate,
                                                    scrubber effluent
                                                    pH, and pressure
                                                    drop (pressure drop
                                                    data only required
                                                    for venturi
                                                    scrubbers) over the
                                                    period of the
                                                    performance test by
                                                    computing the
                                                    average of all 15-
                                                    minute readings.
6. Measure HCN concentration..  A method approved  i. Conduct the
                                 by the             performance test
                                 Administrator.     according to the
                                                    site-specific test
                                                    plan submitted
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.7(c)(2)(i).
                                                    Measure total HCN
                                                    emissions and
                                                    determine the
                                                    reduction efficiency
                                                    of the control
                                                    device. Any
                                                    performance test
                                                    which measures HCN
                                                    concentrations must
                                                    be submitted for the
                                                    administrator's
                                                    approval prior to
                                                    testing. You must
                                                    use EPA Method 301
                                                    (40 CFR part 63,
                                                    Appendix A) to
                                                    validate your
                                                    method.

[[Page 64403]]

 
                                                   ii. Collect scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate,
                                                    scrubber effluent
                                                    pH, and pressure
                                                    drop (pressure drop
                                                    data only required
                                                    for venturi
                                                    scrubbers) every 15
                                                    minutes during the
                                                    entire duration of
                                                    each 1-hour test
                                                    run, and determine
                                                    the average scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate,
                                                    scrubber effluent
                                                    pH, and pressure
                                                    drop (pressure drop
                                                    data only required
                                                    for venturi
                                                    scrubbers) over the
                                                    period of the
                                                    performance test by
                                                    computing the
                                                    average of all 15-
                                                    minute readings.
7. If you use any control       EPA-approved       i. Conduct the
 device other than a scrubber,   methods and data   performance test
 establish operating parameter   from the           according to the
 limits with which you will      continuous         site-specific test
 demonstrate continuous          parameter          plan submitted
 compliance with the emission    monitoring         according to Sec.
 limit that applies to the       system.            63.7(c)(2)(i).
 source.
                                                   ii. For new or
                                                    reconstructed
                                                    sources, determine
                                                    the HCl or HCN
                                                    reduction efficiency
                                                    of the control
                                                    device using the EPA-
                                                    approved method and
                                                    the procedures
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8800(e).
                                                   iii. For existing
                                                    sources, determine
                                                    the HCl emission
                                                    rate using the EPA-
                                                    approved method and
                                                    the procedures
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8800(f).
                                                   iv. Collect operating
                                                    parameter data as
                                                    specified in the
                                                    site-specific test
                                                    plan.
8. Measure HCl concentration..  Method 26A in      Determine the HCl
                                 appendix A to      emission rate using
                                 part 60 of this    the appropriate test
                                 chapter.           methods and the
                                                    procedures specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.8800(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
17. Table 4 to subpart MMMMM is amended by adding entry 4 to read as 
follows:

  Table 4 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
                                 Limits
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You have
                                   For the following     demonstrated
            For . . .             emission limit . .  initial compliance
                                           .               if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. Each existing flame            Emit no more than   The average HCl
 lamination affected source.       1.45 pounds per     emissions,
                                   hour of HCl per     measured over the
                                   flame lamination    period of the
                                   line.               performance
                                                       test(s) do not
                                                       exceed 1.45
                                                       pounds per hour
                                                       per flame
                                                       lamination line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
18. Table 5 to subpart MMMMM is amended by revising entries 2 and 3 to 
read as follows:

Table 5 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
                       Limits and Operating Limits
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You must
                                   For the following      demonstrate
            For . . .             emission limits or      continuous
                                    operating limits   compliance by . .
                                         . . .                 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
2. Each existing, new, or         * * *               * * *
 reconstructed flame lamination
 affected source using a
 scrubber.
3. Each existing, new, or         * * *               * * *
 reconstructed flame lamination
 affected source using any other
 control device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
19. Table 6 to subpart MMMMM is amended by revising table introductory 
text and entry 4 and removing entry 5 to read as follows:

[[Page 64404]]



      Table 6 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
  You must submit a compliance report that includes the information in
     Sec.   63.8818(e) through (g) as well as the information in the
   following table, as applicable. Rows 1 and 3 of the following table
 apply to loop slitter affected sources. Rows 1 through 4 apply to flame
                      lamination affected sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Then you must submit a
                 If . . .                   report or statement that . .
                                                          .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
4. There were periods during which the      Contains the information in
 operating parameter monitoring systems      Sec.   63.8818(f)(2).
 were out-of-control in information in
 accordance with the monitoring plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
20. Table 7 to subpart MMMMM is revised to read as follows:

            Table 7 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart MMMMM
  As stated in Sec.   63.8826, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
                                              the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Applies to subpart
            Citation                      Requirement                  MMMMM                  Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.....................  Initial applicability       Yes...................
                                   determination;
                                   applicability after
                                   standard established;
                                   permit requirements;
                                   extensions; notifications.
Sec.   63.2.....................  Definitions...............  Yes...................  Additional definitions are
                                                                                       found in Sec.   63.8830.
Sec.   63.3.....................  Units and abbreviations...  Yes...................
Sec.   63.4.....................  Prohibited activities;      Yes...................
                                   compliance date;
                                   circumvention,
                                   severability.
Sec.   63.5.....................  Construction/               Yes...................
                                   reconstruction
                                   applicability;
                                   applications; approvals.
Sec.   63.6(a)..................  Compliance with standards   Yes...................
                                   and maintenance
                                   requirements-
                                   applicability.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)...........  Compliance dates for new    Yes...................  Sec.   63.8786 specifies
                                   or reconstructed sources.                           compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)...............  Notification if commenced   Yes...................
                                   construction or
                                   reconstruction after
                                   proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)...............  [Reserved]................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)...............  Compliance dates for new    Yes...................  Sec.   63.8786 specifies
                                   or reconstructed area                               compliance dates.
                                   sources that become major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)...........  Compliance dates for        Yes...................  Sec.   63.8786 specifies
                                   existing sources.                                   compliance dates.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)...........  [Reserved]................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)...............  Compliance dates for        Yes...................  Sec.   63.8786 specifies
                                   existing area sources                               compliance dates.
                                   that become major.
Sec.   63.6(d)..................  [Reserved]................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)............  General duty to minimize    No....................  Sec.   63.8794(c)
                                   emissions.                                          specifies general duty
                                                                                       requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)...........  Requirement to correct      No....................
                                   malfunctions as soon as
                                   possible.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)..........  Enforceability of           Yes...................
                                   requirements independent
                                   of other regulations.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)...............  [Reserved]................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)...............  SSM plans.................  No....................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)...............  Compliance except during    No....................
                                   SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)...........  Methods for determining     Yes...................
                                   compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)..................  Use of an alternative       Yes...................
                                   nonopacity emission
                                   standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)..................  Compliance with opacity/    No....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                   visible emission                                    specify opacity or
                                   standards.                                          visible emission
                                                                                       standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)..................  Extension of compliance     Yes...................
                                   with emission standards.
Sec.   63.6(j)..................  Presidential compliance     Yes...................
                                   exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)...........  Performance test dates....  Yes...................  Except for loop slitter
                                                                                       affected sources as
                                                                                       specified in Sec.
                                                                                       63.8798(a).
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)...............  Administrator's section     Yes...................
                                   114 authority to require
                                   a performance test.
Sec.   63.7(b)..................  Notification of             Yes...................
                                   performance test and
                                   rescheduling.
Sec.   63.7(c)..................  Quality assurance program   Yes...................
                                   and site-specific test
                                   plans.
Sec.   63.7(d)..................  Performance testing         Yes...................
                                   facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)...............  Conditions for conducting   No....................  Requirements for
                                   performance tests.                                  performance test
                                                                                       conditions are found in
                                                                                       Sec.   63.8800(b) and
                                                                                       (c).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(3)...........  Performance test data       Yes...................
                                   reduction and number of
                                   test runs.
Sec.   63.7(f)..................  Use of an alternative test  Yes...................
                                   method.
Sec.   63.7(g)..................  Performance test data       Yes...................
                                   analysis, recordkeeping,
                                   and reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h)..................  Waiver of performance       Yes...................
                                   tests.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)...........  Applicability of            Yes...................  Unless otherwise
                                   monitoring requirements.                            specified, all of Sec.
                                                                                       63.8 applies only to new
                                                                                       or reconstructed flame
                                                                                       lamination sources.
                                                                                       Additional monitoring
                                                                                       requirements for these
                                                                                       sources are found in Sec.
                                                                                        Sec.   63.8794(f) and
                                                                                       (g) and 63.8804.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)...............  [Reserved]................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)...............  Monitoring with flares....  No....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                                                                       refer directly or
                                                                                       indirectly to Sec.
                                                                                       63.11.
Sec.   63.8(b)..................  Conduct of monitoring and   Yes...................
                                   procedures when there are
                                   multiple effluents and
                                   multiple monitoring
                                   systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)-(3)...........  Continuous monitoring       No....................  CMS requirements are found
                                   system (CMS) operation                              in Sec.   63.8794(f) and
                                   and maintenance.                                    (g).

[[Page 64405]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)...............  Continuous monitoring       Yes...................  Applies as modified by
                                   system requirements                                 Sec.   63.8794(g).
                                   during breakdown, out-of-
                                   control, repair,
                                   maintenance, and high-
                                   level calibration drifts.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)...............  Continuous opacity          No....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                   monitoring system (COMS)                            have opacity or visible
                                   minimum procedures.                                 emission standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)...............  Zero and high-level         Yes...................  Applies as modified by
                                   calibration checks.                                 Sec.   63.8794(f).
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)...........  Out-of-control periods,     Yes...................
                                   including reporting.
Sec.   63.8(d)-(e)..............  Quality control program     No....................  CMS requirements are found
                                   and CMS performance                                 in Sec.   63.8794(f) and
                                   evaluation.                                         (g).
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)...........  Use of an alternative       Yes...................
                                   monitoring method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)...............  Alternative to relative     No....................  Only applies to sources
                                   accuracy test.                                      that use continuous
                                                                                       emissions monitoring
                                                                                       systems (CEMS).
Sec.   63.8(g)..................  Data reduction............  Yes...................  Applies as modified by
                                                                                       Sec.   63.8794(g).
Sec.   63.9(a)..................  Notification requirements-- Yes...................
                                   applicability.
Sec.   63.9(b)..................  Initial notifications.....  Yes...................  Except Sec.   63.8816(c)
                                                                                       requires new or
                                                                                       reconstructed affected
                                                                                       sources to submit the
                                                                                       application for
                                                                                       construction or
                                                                                       reconstruction required
                                                                                       by Sec.   63.9(b)(1)(iii)
                                                                                       in lieu of the initial
                                                                                       notification.
Sec.   63.9(c)..................  Request for compliance      Yes...................
                                   extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)..................  Notification that a new     Yes...................
                                   source is subject to
                                   special compliance
                                   requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e)..................  Notification of             Yes...................
                                   performance test.
Sec.   63.9(f)..................  Notification of visible     No....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                   emissions/opacity test.                             have opacity or visible
                                                                                       emission standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)...............  Additional CMS              Yes...................
                                   notifications--date of
                                   CMS performance
                                   evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)...............  Use of COMS data..........  No....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                                                                       require the use of COMS.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3)...............  Alternative to relative     No....................  Applies only to sources
                                   accuracy testing.                                   with CEMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)..................  Notification of compliance  Yes...................
                                   status.
Sec.   63.9(i)..................  Adjustment of submittal     Yes...................
                                   deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)..................  Change in previous          Yes...................
                                   information.
Sec.   63.9(k)..................  Electronic reporting        Yes...................  Only as specified in Sec.
                                   procedures.                                          63.9(j).
Sec.   63.10(a).................  Recordkeeping/reporting     Yes...................
                                   applicability.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)..............  General recordkeeping       Yes...................  Sec.  Sec.   63.8820 and
                                   requirements.                                       63.8822 specify
                                                                                       additional recordkeeping
                                                                                       requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii)..  Records related to SSM      No....................  See Sec.   63.8820 for
                                   periods and CMS.                                    recordkeeping of (1)
                                                                                       date, time, and duration;
                                                                                       (2) listing of affected
                                                                                       source or equipment, and
                                                                                       an estimate of the
                                                                                       quantity of each
                                                                                       regulated pollutant
                                                                                       emitted over the
                                                                                       standard; and (3) actions
                                                                                       to minimize emissions and
                                                                                       correct the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).........  Records of maintenance on   Yes...................
                                   air pollution control
                                   equipment..
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)..  Records related to SSM....  No....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi).....  Records of CMS and other    Yes...................
                                   compliance records.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).........  Records when under waiver.  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)........  Records when using          No....................  Applies only to sources
                                   alternative to relative                             with CEMS.
                                   accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).........  All documentation           Yes...................
                                   supporting initial
                                   notification and
                                   notification of
                                   compliance status.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)..............  Recordkeeping requirements  Yes...................
                                   for applicability
                                   determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c).................  Additional recordkeeping    Yes...................  Applies as modified by
                                   requirements for sources                            Sec.   63.8794(g).
                                   with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)..............  General reporting           Yes...................  Sec.   63.8818 specifies
                                   requirements.                                       additional reporting
                                                                                       requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)..............  Performance test results..  Yes...................
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)..............  Opacity or visible          No....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                   emissions observations.                             specify opacity or
                                                                                       visible emission
                                                                                       standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)..............  Progress reports for        Yes...................
                                   sources with compliance
                                   extensions.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)..............  SSM reports...............  No....................
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)..............  Additional CMS reports--    Yes...................  Applies as modified by
                                   general.                                            Sec.   63.8794(g).
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(i)...........  Results of CMS performance  Yes...................  Applies as modified by
                                   evaluations.                                        Sec.   63.8794(g).
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)..............  Results of continuous       No....................  Subpart MMMMM does require
                                   opacity monitoring                                  the use of COMS.
                                   systems performance
                                   evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)..............  Excess emissions/CMS        Yes...................  Only applies to new or
                                   performance reports.                                reconstructed flame
                                                                                       lamination affected
                                                                                       sources.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)..............  Continuous opacity          No....................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                   monitoring system data                              require the use of COMS.
                                   reports.
Sec.   63.10(f).................  Recordkeeping/reporting     Yes...................
                                   waiver.
Sec.   63.11....................  Control device              No....................  Facilities subject to
                                   requirements--applicabili                           subpart MMMMM do not use
                                   ty.                                                 flares as control
                                                                                       devices.
Sec.   63.12....................  State authority and         Yes...................  Sec.   63.8828 lists those
                                   delegations.                                        sections of subparts
                                                                                       MMMMM and A that are not
                                                                                       delegated.
Sec.   63.13....................  Addresses.................  Yes...................
Sec.   63.14....................  Incorporation by reference  Yes...................  Subpart MMMMM does not
                                                                                       incorporate any material
                                                                                       by reference.
Sec.   63.15....................  Availability of             Yes...................
                                   information/
                                   confidentiality..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 64406]]


0
21. Table 8 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63 is added to read as follows:

  Table 8 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 That Must Be Counted Toward Total HAP Content if Present at 0.1 Percent
                            or More by Weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Chemical name                           CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane...........................             79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...............................             79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine...............................             57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.........................             96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine...............................            122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene.......................................            106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.................................            542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane.........................................            123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...............................             88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)....................          25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene..................................            121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.................................             95-80-7
2-Nitropropane......................................             79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine..............................             91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.............................            119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine..............................            119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).................            101-14-4
Acetaldehyde........................................             75-07-0
Acrylamide..........................................             79-06-1
Acrylonitrile.......................................            107-13-1
Allyl chloride......................................            107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).................            319-84-6
Aniline.............................................             62-53-3
Benzene.............................................             71-43-2
Benzidine...........................................             92-87-5
Benzotrichloride....................................             98-07-7
Benzyl chloride.....................................            100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)..................            319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate..........................            117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether..............................            542-88-1
Bromoform...........................................             75-25-2
Captan..............................................            133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride................................             56-23-5
Chlordane...........................................             57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate.....................................            510-15-6
Chloroform..........................................             67-66-3
Chloroprene.........................................            126-99-8
Cresols (mixed).....................................           1319-77-3
DDE.................................................           3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.................................            111-44-4
Dichlorvos..........................................             62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin.....................................            106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate......................................            140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide..................................            106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.................................            107-06-2
Ethylene oxide......................................             75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea...................................             96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)..........             75-34-3
Formaldehyde........................................             50-00-0
Heptachlor..........................................             76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene...................................            118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.................................             87-68-3
Hexachloroethane....................................             67-72-1
Hydrazine...........................................            302-01-2
Isophorone..........................................             78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)........             58-89-9
m-Cresol............................................            108-39-4
Methylene chloride..................................             75-09-2
Naphthalene.........................................             91-20-3
Nitrobenzene........................................             98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine................................             62-75-9
o-Cresol............................................             95-48-7
o-Toluidine.........................................             95-53-4
Parathion...........................................             56-38-2
p-Cresol............................................            106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene...................................            106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.............................             82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol...................................             87-86-5

[[Page 64407]]

 
Propoxur............................................            114-26-1
Propylene dichloride................................             78-87-5
Propylene oxide.....................................             75-56-9
Quinoline...........................................             91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene...................................            127-18-4
Toxaphene...........................................           8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene...................................             79-01-6
Trifluralin.........................................           1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide.......................................            593-60-2
Vinyl chloride......................................             75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.................................             75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart OOOOOO--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and 
Fabrication Area Sources

0
22. Section 63.11416 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.11416   What are the standards for new and existing sources?

* * * * *
    (b) If you own or operate a new or existing slabstock polyurethane 
foam production affected source, you must not use any material 
containing methylene chloride for any purpose in any slabstock flexible 
foam production process.
* * * * *
    (f) You may demonstrate compliance with the requirements in 
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section using adhesive usage 
records, Material Safety Data Sheets, and engineering calculations.

0
23. Section 63.11417 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.11417   What are the compliance requirements for new and 
existing sources?

* * * * *
    (b) Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock flexible 
polyurethane foam production affected source must comply with 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) You must submit a notification of compliance status report no 
later than 180 days after your compliance date. The report must contain 
this certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, for 
the standards in Sec.  63.11416(b): ``This facility uses no material 
containing methylene chloride for any purpose on any slabstock flexible 
foam process.''
* * * * *

0
24. Section 63.11418 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.11418   What General Provisions apply to this subpart?

    The provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, do not apply to 
sources subject to this subpart.

0
25. Remove Table 1 to Subpart OOOOOO of Part 63--Applicability of 
General Provisions to Subpart OOOOOO.

[FR Doc. 2021-24019 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


