MACT-allowable emissions level, with a cost effectiveness of
approximately $234,000/ton HAP emissions reduction. None of these
additional control requirements for diisocyanate equipment leaks would
achieve a reduction in the maximum individual cancer risks or any of
the other health risk metrics. Due to the minimal reductions in HAP
emissions and risk, along with the substantial costs associated with
these options, we are proposing that additional HAP emissions controls
for FPUF production diisocyanate equipment leaks are not necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Production of
Flexible Polyurethane Foam. Basis and Purpose Document for Proposed
Standards.'' Page 6-9. U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. September 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Adverse Environmental Effects
    We did not identify emissions of the seven environmental HAP
included in our environmental risk screening, and are unaware of any
adverse environmental effects caused by other HAP emitted by this
source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category, and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?

    As described in section III.C of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes and
control technologies for the emission sources in the FPUF production
source category. The following sections summarize our technology review
results. More information concerning our technology review can be found
in the memorandum titled, Technology Review and Cost Impacts for the
Proposed Amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Source
Category, which is available in the docket.
1. Slabstock Foam Production Line
    The current MACT standards allow limited use of HAP-based ABAs at
slabstock foam production facilities, while prohibiting the use of HAP-
based products, with limited exceptions, for specific purposes at other
types of FPUF production facilities (including equipment cleaning,
mixhead flushing and facilitating mold release at molded and rebond
foam facilities). The FPUF Production MACT standards also prohibit HAP
and HAP-based products in equipment cleaners at slabstock foam
facilities (except at facilities operating under the provisions for a
source-wide emission limit for a single HAP ABA). Prohibiting the use
of HAP-based ABAs and HAP-based equipment cleaners at slabstock foam
production facilities has been identified as a development in

practices and/or processes that could reduce HAP emissions from the
slabstock foam production line.
    At the time of promulgation of the FPUF MACT standards, the EPA
believed that HAP ABAs were necessary for production of some grades of
foam. Therefore, the FPUF Production MACT standards significantly
limited the use of HAP ABAs by slabstock foam producers, but allowed
their use in production of certain grades of foam.
    Available data from EPA databases, industry survey responses and
contacts with state and local permitting agencies show that none of the
13 facilities currently identified as being subject to the FPUF
Production MACT standards are using any HAP ABAs, or ABAs containing
HAP (i.e., HAP-based ABAs). Further confirmation was received through
discussions with the Polyurethane Foam Association (PFA), a trade
association representing the slabstock polyurethane foam production
industry. Details of the discussion with PFA are contained in
Documentation of Communications with Industry and Regulatory Agency
Contacts for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Industry, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking. The discontinuation of HAP
ABAs (or HAP-based ABAs) use by FPUF producers demonstrates that foam
producers have improved their ability to produce their products using
alternatives to HAP or HAP-based ABAs since the promulgation of the
original FPUF Production NESHAP.
    No facilities subject to subpart III are currently using any HAP or
HAP-based ABAs. Therefore, there will be no cost associated with
codifying current industry practice prohibiting the use of HAP or HAP-
based ABAs. There may be small cost savings at some facilities due to
reduced monitoring and recordkeeping costs. Because there are no
estimated costs, the industry is already complying with this HAP and
HAP-based ABA prohibition in practice, and reductions in allowable
emissions would be achieved, we are proposing that it is necessary,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), to revise the MACT to prohibit the
use of HAP and HAP-based ABAs at slabstock foam production facilities.
As noted in section IV.B.2., we are concurrently proposing this HAP and
HAP-based ABA prohibition under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Also, as noted in
section II.B, we solicit comments regarding whether any facilities
subject to subpart III currently use HAP or HAP-based ABAs.
2. Diisocyanate Storage Vessels
    The FPUF Production MACT standards provide two compliance options
for diisocyanate storage vessels: Equip the storage vessels (tanks)
with a vapor return line from the storage vessel to the truck or rail
car during unloading; or equip the storage vessel with a carbon
adsorption system which routes displaced vapors through activated
carbon. These control systems are estimated to have control
efficiencies of 95 percent. For the technology review, we identified
two potential control options to capture and control emissions from
storage tanks: Regenerative and recuperative thermal oxidizers. Both
reportedly have control efficiencies of 98 percent, and known
application to low concentration organic vapor gas streams. We estimate
an additional emission reduction of 0.0026 tpy would be associated with
an increase from 95 percent estimated HAP control in the original FPUF
MACT standards to 98 percent HAP control today. The estimated cost per
ton of emissions reduction would be $124 million and $270 million per
ton of HAP for regenerative and recuperative thermal oxidizers,
respectively.
    Based on the high costs and the minimal emissions reductions that
would be achieved by these diisocyanate tank controls, we are proposing
that it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) to provide for a stricter level of control.
3. Equipment Leaks
    For equipment leaks, we identified two developments in practices,
process or control technologies: Use of ``leakless'' valves in
diisocyanate service at slabstock facilities and implementation of an
enhanced equipment LDAR for diisocyanate equipment leaks at slabstock
facilities. While there are requirements for LDAR in the original MACT
standards, we further investigated LDAR for developments that have
occurred since the rule was promulgated. The two developments in LDAR
programs are a limit on the total number of non-repairable equipment
allowed and the inclusion of lower leak detection limits for valves and
connectors than those considered previously for the MACT standards.
a. ``Leakless'' Valves
    ``Leakless'' valves that significantly reduce emissions are in
place in some facilities outside the FPUF production source category,
particularly oil refineries. We analyzed the costs associated with
requiring this ``leakless'' valve technology for valves in diisocyanate
service in the FPUF production source category using cost estimates
developed for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry.
Nationwide annual costs were estimated to be $310,000/yr, with total
capital investments of $2,260,000. Emission reductions were estimated
to be 1 tpy, resulting in a cost effectiveness of $305,000/ton HAP
reduction.
    Based on the high costs and the minimal emissions reductions that
would be achieved using this technology, we are proposing that it is
not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) to require the installation of ``leakless'' valves.
b. Implementation of Enhanced LDAR Programs
    The current MACT standards require an LDAR program that employs
visual, audible or other methods for detecting leaks. This standard
requires repair of leaks within 15 calendar days when leaks are
detected by visual, audible or any other detection method for
equipment, other than transfer pumps, in diisocyanate service. Leakless
technology is required for transfer pumps.
    During the development of the MACT standards, another LDAR program,
using Method 21, was identified as a beyond-the-floor method for
controlling emissions from equipment leaks at slabstock foam facilities
for equipment in diisocyanate service, but was not chosen as the level
of the standard. At that time, the leak definition was set at a HAP
concentration of 10,000 ppm or greater. Since the development of the
MACT standards, analyses have been performed by the EPA regarding costs
and emission reductions in the chemical and petroleum industries
associated with lowering the level at which a HAP concentration is
considered to be a leak for LDAR programs.\23\ We used these analyses
in the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for the FPUF production
source category to assess the effects of adding an enhanced LDAR
program for metering pumps, valves, connectors and open-ended lines in
diisocyanate service at slabstock foam production facilities. The LDAR
program would incorporate monitoring, employing Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A, and lower leak definitions. The lower leak
definitions considered

include two options identified in the EPA analysis of emissions
reduction techniques for equipment leaks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Memorandum from Cindy Hancy, RTI to Jodi Howard, EPA,
Analysis of Emission Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks,
December 21, 2011. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-0180.) See Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Leak definition for metering pumps of 2,000 ppm; leak definition
for valves, connectors and open-ended lines of 500 ppm;
    2. Leak definition for valves of 100 ppm; leak definition for
metering pumps, connectors and open-ended lines of 500 ppm.
    We analyzed the costs associated with an LDAR programs with these
two options for leak definitions for equipment in diisocyanate service.
For both options, nationwide total annual costs were estimated to be
around $28,200/yr, with total capital investments of approximately
$32,400. Reduction of HAP emissions were estimated to be about 0.38
tpy, resulting in a cost effectiveness of approximately $74,000/ton HAP
reduction.
    The current MACT standards allow leak repairs to be delayed under
certain circumstances. Limits on the number of leaking components
awaiting repair was also identified as a potential development in
practice that could reduce diisocyanate emissions from equipment leaks.
Both the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have LDAR programs
that limit the number of leaking equipment components awaiting repair.
The BAAQMD rule also requires mass emission testing for leaking valves
and requires valves with a high leak rate to be repaired within 7 days.
We estimated the costs of requirements addressing equipment awaiting
leak repair like those of the BAAQMD rule, irrespective of the other
costs for an LDAR program. Nationwide annual costs were estimated to be
$18,212/yr, with no capital investments required. Emission reductions
were estimated to be 0.002 tpy, resulting in a cost effectiveness of
$233,770 per ton of HAP reduction for equipment in diisocyanate service
at slabstock facilities.
    Based on the high costs and the minimal emissions reduction that
would be achieved with LDAR programs using Method 21 and either of the
leak definition options, or with the restrictions on equipment awaiting
repair, we are proposing that it is not necessary to revise the MACT
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require an enhanced LDAR
program. However, we are adding a provision to the rule to clarify that
delay of leak repairs for valves and connectors must be completed
within 6 months of detection, as described in section IV.D.4.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

1. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunctions
a. Background
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding
that under 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 section 112 standards apply
continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this
proposed rule. Therefore, this proposed rule has changed the indication
of ``Yes'' to ``No'' in the General Provisions table (Table 2) of this
rule for Sec.  63.6(f), in which Sec.  63.6(f)(1) states, ``The non-
opacity emission standards set forth in this part shall apply at all
times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. . .
.'' Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards
in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to Table 2 (Applicability of General Provisions), as is
explained in more detail below. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
Information on periods of startup and shutdown received from the
facilities in the FPUF production industry indicate that emissions
during these periods are the same as during normal operations. The
primary means of compliance with the standards are through work
practices and product substitutions, which eliminate the use of HAP,
and are in place at all times. Therefore, separate standards for
periods of startup and shutdown are not necessary and are not being
proposed.
    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best
controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the
EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards consistent
with the CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires
the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section
112 of the CAA uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best
performing'' unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section
112 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best
controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning
presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably''
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C.
Cir. 1999) (the EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no

general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal
of a best controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a
way as to avoid malfunctions of the source and accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards that are significantly less
stringent than levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-
malfunctioning source. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent
with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in
fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not
instead ``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.''
40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause a violation of the relevant emission standard. See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Findings of Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction; Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013); State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb.
15, 1983). The EPA is, therefore, proposing to add an affirmative
defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards that
are caused by malfunctions. (See 40 CFR 63.1292 defining ``affirmative
defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are
independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative
proceeding). We also are proposing other regulatory provisions to
specify the elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative
defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
it has met all of the elements set forth in Sec.  63.1290(e) (See 40
CFR 22.24). The criteria are designed in part to ensure that the
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes a
violation of the emission standard meets the narrow definition of
malfunction in Sec.  63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the violation ``[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner. . . .'' The criteria also are
designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to
minimize emissions in accordance with section 63.1290(d) and to prevent
future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred. . .'' and that
``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health. . .
.'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may
challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the
respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in
the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in
accordance with CAA section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.27).
    The EPA included an affirmative defense in the proposed rule in an
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation,
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be
violated under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA
must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.''
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation'' and ``emission
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021
(D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that emissions
standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction
events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a
malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable through
injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an affirmative defense
provision is consistent with CAA section 113(e). Luminant Generation
Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2013)
(upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative defense provisions in a
CAA State Implementation Plan). While ``continuous'' standards, on the
one hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus,
486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit acknowledged that in
setting standards under CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment
malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the `never to
be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement
Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though
intervening case law, such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977
amendments, call into question the relevance of these cases today, they
support the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for
a defense to civil penalties for violations that are proven to be
beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative
defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to malfunctions. In a
Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of
formalized approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the
permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th
Cir. 1977). See also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d. 1174
(9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry argument that reliance on the
affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an
informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give
the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission standards are
``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for
unplanned upsets and thus

support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole. The EPA is
proposing the affirmative defense applicable to malfunctions under the
delegation of general regulatory authority set out in CAA section
301(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), in order to balance this tension
between provisions of the CAA and the practical reality, as case law
recognizes, that technology sometimes fails. See generally Citizens to
Save Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d
844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (using CAA section 301(a) authority to
harmonize inconsistent guidelines related to the implementation of
federal preconstruction review requirements).
b. Specific SSM-Related Proposed Changes
    To address the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM, we
are revising and adding certain provisions to the FPUF Production rule.
As described in detail below, we are revising the General Provisions
(Table 2) to change several of the references related to requirements
that apply during periods of SSM. We are also adding the following
provisions to the FPUF Production rule: (1) The general duty to
minimize emissions at all times, (2) the requirement for sources to
comply with the emission limits in the rule at all times, and (3)
malfunction recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
i. Sec.  63.1290(d)(4) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2)
entry for Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2) by adding rows specifically for Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and to include a
``no'' in the second column for the Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i) entry. Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at Sec.  63.1290(d)(4) that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the
reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there
is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and
shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty.
Therefore the language the EPA is proposing does not include that
language from Sec.  63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to include a ``no'' in the second column for
the newly added Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(ii) entry. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii)
imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the
SSM exemption or are redundant of the general duty requirement being
added at Sec.  63.1290(d)(4).
ii. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2)
entry for Sec.  63.6(f) by adding a specific entry for Sec.  63.6(f)(1)
and including a ``no'' in the second column for this Sec.  63.6(f)(1)
entry. The current language of section 63.6, paragraph (f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
iii. Sec.  63.1307(h) Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2)
entry for Sec.  63.10(a)-(b) by adding rows specifically for Sec.
63.10(a), 63.10(b)(1), 63.10 (b)(2)(i), 63.10 (b)(2)(ii), 63.10
(b)(2)(iii), 63.10 (b)(2)(iv)-(xi), 63.10 (b)(2)(xii), 63.10 (b)(xiii),
and 63.10 (b)(2)(xiv) in order to specify changes we are making to the
applicability of several of the Sec.  63.10(b)(2) paragraphs. In the
entry for Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i), we are including a ``no'' in the second
column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements
during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer
necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In
the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown,
such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain
additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    In the entry for Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(ii), we are including a ``no''
in the second column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.1307(h). The regulatory text we
are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is
replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to Sec.  63.1307(h) a
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the
affected sources or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the
standard for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any
failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source
has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are including a ``no'' in the second column in the entry for
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iv) and 63.10(b)(2)(v). When applicable, the
provisions require sources to record actions taken during SSM events
when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. These requirements
are not appropriate because SSM plans are not (and were not) required
by this rule, and the General Provisions applicability table referenced
these sections in error.
iv. Sec.  63.1306(f) Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2)
entry for Sec.  63.10(d)(4)-(5) by adding a specific entry for Sec.
63.10(d)(5) and including a ``no'' in the second column for this Sec.
63.10(d)(5) entry. Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.1306(f). The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semi-
annual report for slabstock affected sources and in the annual
compliance

certification for molded and rebond affected sources, which are already
required under this rule. We are proposing that the malfunction report
must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such
events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected
sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    The proposed rule eliminates the cross reference to section
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
    We note that reporting a failure to meet an applicable standard
could include malfunction events for which a source may choose to
submit documentation to support an assertion of affirmative defense. If
a source provides all the material required in section 63.1290(e) to
support an affirmative defense, the source need not submit the same
information two times in the same report. While assertion of an
affirmative defense is not mandatory and occurs only if a source
chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense, the affirmative
defense also requires additional reporting that goes beyond these
routine requirements related to a failure to meet an applicable
standard for a reason other than a malfunction.
    The proposed rule also eliminates the cross-reference to section
63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report
for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet
an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. These
requirements are not appropriate because SSM plans are not required by
this rule, and the General Provisions applicability table referenced
this section in error.
2. Electronic Reporting of Performance Test Data
    In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to increase the
ease and efficiency of performance test data submittal while improving
data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of FPUF production facilities submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports by direct computer-to-computer
electronic transfer using EPA-provided software. The direct computer-
to-computer electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CDX is EPA's portal for submittal of
electronic data. The EPA-provided software is called the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) which is used to generate electronic reports of
performance tests and evaluations. The ERT generates an electronic
report package which will be submitted using the CEDRI. The submitted
report package will be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of
record) and EPA's public database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will
have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE and accessing these
reports and data will be very straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE
Report Search and Retrieval link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). A description and
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site
(www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the WebFIRE database is available
at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the
EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT. The ERT supports most of the
commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and
test methods supported by the ERT is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
    We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach
to electronic data submittal. Specifically, by using this approach,
industry will save time in the performance test submittal process.
Additionally, the standardized format that the ERT uses allows sources
to create a more complete test report resulting in less time spent on
data backfilling if a source failed to include all data elements
required to be submitted. Also through this proposal industry may only
need to submit a report once to meet the requirements of the applicable
subpart because stakeholders can readily access these reports from the
WebFIRE database. This also benefits industry by cutting back on
recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted
to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be retained in hard
copy, thereby, reducing staff time needed to coordinate these records.
    Since the EPA will already have performance test data in hand,
another benefit to industry is that fewer or less substantial data
collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual
risk assessments or technology reviews will be needed. This would
result in a decrease in staff time needed to respond to data collection
requests.
    State, local and tribal air pollution control agencies (S/L/Ts) may
also benefit from having electronic versions of the reports they are
now receiving. For example, S/L/Ts may be able to conduct a more
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them.
For example, the ERT would allow for an electronic review process,
rather than a manual data assessment, therefore, making review and
evaluation of the source provided data and calculations easier and more
efficient. In addition, the public stands to benefit from electronic
reporting of emissions data because the electronic data will be easier
for the public to access. How the air emissions data are collected,
accessed and reviewed will be more transparent for all stakeholders.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much
of the documentation required to be reported by this proposed rule. The
ERT clearly states what testing information would be required by the
test method and has the ability to house additional data elements that
might be required by a delegated authority.
    In addition the EPA must have performance test data to conduct
effective reviews of CAA sections 111, 112 and 129 standards, as well
as for many other purposes including compliance determinations,
emission factor development and annual emission rate determinations. In
conducting these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and
time consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and
source owners and operators, to locate, collect and submit performance
test data. In recent

years, though, stack testing firms have typically collected performance
test data in electronic format, making it possible to move to an
electronic data submittal system that would increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
    A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that
emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular
source category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from
most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that emission
factors, when updated, represent the most current range of operational
practices. Another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall
quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool
of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors.
    Finally, the general public would also benefit from electronic
reporting of emissions data because the data would be available for
viewing sooner and would be easier for the public to access. The EPA
Web site that stores the submitted electronic data will be easily
accessible to the public and will provide a user-friendly interface
that any stakeholder could access.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data would save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the
EPA significant time, money and effort, while also improving the
quality of emission inventories and air quality regulations. Electronic
databases will also benefit the general public by improving
accessibility to emissions data in an efficient and timely manner.
3. Clarification to Diisocyanate Storage Vessels Leak Detection Methods
    The EPA is proposing to clarify the leak detection methods that may
be used for diisocyanate storage vessels at slabstock foam production
facilities during unloading events. The current requirements allow the
vapor return line to be inspected for leaks during unloading events
using visual, audible or any other detection method. Today, the EPA is
proposing to clarify, that ``any other detection method'' must be an
instrumental detection method.
4. Clarification to Diisocyanate Equipment Leak Delay of Repair
Requirements for Valves and Connectors
    The FPUF Production MACT standards generally require equipment
leaks to be repaired within 15 days. However, there are also provisions
that allow for a delay of repair. A delay of repair for pumps is
allowed if repair requires replacing the existing seal design with a
sealless pump, and the repair is completed as soon as practicable, but
not later than 6 months after the leak is detected. For valves and
connectors, a delay of repair is allowed if the owner or operator
determines that diisocyanate emissions of purged material resulting
from immediate repair are greater than the fugitive emissions likely to
result from a delay of repair. However, for valves and connectors, the
current provisions do not state how long such a delay may last. To be
consistent with the requirements for pumps, we are proposing to clarify
that, for valves and connectors, the repair must be completed as soon
as practicable, but not later than 6 months after the leak was
detected.

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    We are proposing that FPUF production facilities comply with the
new proposed requirements prohibiting the use of HAP ABAs in this
action no later than 90 days after the effective date of the final
rule. This time period will be sufficient because all FPUF production
facilities have already discontinued use of HAP ABAs.
    We are proposing that facilities must comply with the SSM reporting
and recordkeeping requirements and affirmative defense provisions, and
requirements for electronic reporting on the effective date of the
rule. We are proposing these compliance dates because the revised SSM
requirements should be immediately implementable by the facilities upon
the next occurrence of a malfunction, and the electronic reporting
requirements should be immediately implementable by the facilities upon
their next performance test.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We anticipate that 13 FPUF production facilities currently
operating in the United States will be affected by these proposed
amendments. We also expect no new facilities to be constructed in the
foreseeable future. For more information about expected new facilities,
see the document titled, Documentation of Communications with Industry
and Regulatory Agency Contacts for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Industry, located in the docket for this action.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that the proposed amendments to the FPUF
Production MACT standards will not result in any directly quantifiable
reduction of HAP emissions. Emissions of HAP from FPUF production
sources have significantly declined since promulgation of the FPUF
Production MACT standards because HAP ABAs are no longer used by FPUF
production facilities. However, as discussed in section III.A.2, the
MACT standards currently allow sources to use HAP ABAs. We estimate
that the MACT-allowable emissions for the FPUF production source
category are 735 tons of HAP ABAs. If the proposed revision prohibiting
the use of HAP ABAs is finalized, the MACT-allowable emissions from ABA
use would be zero. A detailed documentation of the analysis can be
found in: MACT-Allowable Emissions for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production Source Category, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the proposed amendments, FPUF production facilities are not
expected to incur any costs. However, there may be small cost savings
at some facilities due to reduced monitoring and recordkeeping costs.
The memorandum, Technology Review and Cost Impacts for the Proposed
Amendments to the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Source
Category, includes a complete description of the cost estimate methods
used for the analyses related to the proposed HAP and HAP-based ABA
prohibition and is available in the docket.

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

E. What are the benefits?

    We do not anticipate any significant actual emission reductions of
HAP as a result of these proposed amendments. However, if finalized,
the proposed prohibition on HAP ABA use would eliminate the possibility
that facilities

might begin to use HAP ABAs again. Under the existing rule, those
possible emissions are estimated at 735 tons of HAP ABAs. If the
prohibition is adopted, no emissions of HAP ABA would be allowed by the
standard.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available on the RTR
Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data
files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point
for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510 (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility.
We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of
updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1783.07.
    The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to
the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an
estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an
assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the
EPA has provided administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what
the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated
with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's
estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any
individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $2,188
for the FPUF production source category, and is based on the time and
effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant
employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has
caused an exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate also includes
time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the
EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition
above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions
would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense.
Thus, we believe the number of instances in which source operators
might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will
be extremely small. With respect to the FPUF production source
category, we estimate the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden
after the effective date of the proposed rule for affirmative defense
to be 30 hours at a cost of $2,188. We expect to gather information on
such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better
information becomes available.
    We estimate approximately 13 regulated entities are currently
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart III, and will be subject to all
proposed standards, a decrease of 119 regulated entities from our
estimate for the previous ICR (EPA ICR Number 1783.05, OMB Control
Number 2060-0357) for the FPUF production source category. The annual
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection
(averaged over the first 3 years after the

effective date of the standards) for subpart III (FPUF production),
including today's proposed amendments, is estimated to be $90,104 per
year. This includes 1,030 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of
$90,104 per year, and total non-labor capital and operation and
maintenance costs of $0 per year. This represents a decrease of
$760,000 and 8,000 labor hours from the previous ICR, due primarily to
the reduction in the estimated number of regulated entities. Our
estimate of the burden for each regulated entity has increased by $485
and 11 labor hours from the previous ICR estimate. This increase in
burden for each regulated entity is not due to the proposed amendments,
but is due to a correction of an error in the total number of reports
required per year for slabstock foam producers. This was previously
estimated to be two semi-annual reports per year, but this estimate did
not account for the annual compliance report.
    The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the
first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to
be 67 hours per year at a total labor cost of $3,607 per year. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0510. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and
OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for
where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after November 4, 2013, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 4,
2013. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are small businesses.
We have determined that three facilities, or 23 percent of the 13
affected facilities, are small entities. Total annualized costs for the
proposed rule are estimated to be $0, and no small entities are
projected to incur costs. Because HAP ABAs are no longer used by FPUF
production facilities, there are no impacts on any entities subject to
this rulemaking.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duties on any state, local
or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, nor
will it preempt state law, and none of the facilities subject to this
action are owned or operated by state governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this action from
state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). There are no
FPUF production facilities that are within 3 miles of tribal lands.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the agency does not believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed action's
health and risk assessments are contained in section IV of this
preamble.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to HAP
emitted by FPUF production facilities.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this rule is not
likely to have any adverse energy effects because the proposed
requirements of this rule will not cause the additional use of energy
by any facilities in the source category nor is there any expected
impact on sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors
related to the proposed provisions of this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    To gain a better understanding of the source category and near
source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis on FPUF
production facilities to identify any overrepresentation of minority,
low income or indigenous populations. This analysis only gives some
indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to
air pollution from the sources; it does not identify the demographic
characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities,
nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or
communities. More information on the source category's risk can be
found in section IV of this preamble.
    The proximity analysis reveals that most demographic categories are
below or within 20 percent of their corresponding national averages.
The one exception is the African American population. The ratio of
African Americans living within 3 miles of any source affected by this
rule is 48 percent higher than the national average (19 percent versus
13 percent); however, as noted previously, risks from this source
category were found to be acceptable for all populations. Additionally,
the proposed changes to the standard increase the level of
environmental protection for all affected populations by ensuring no
future emissions increases from the source category. The proximity
analysis results and the details concerning their development are
presented in the August 2012 memorandum titled, Environmental Justice
Review: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, a copy of which is
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0510).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 26, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection agency (EPA) proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.1290 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1290  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) A process meeting one of the following criteria listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section shall not be subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
    (1) A process exclusively dedicated to the fabrication of flexible
polyurethane foam; or
    (2) A research and development process.
    (d) Applicability of this subpart. (1) The emission limitations set
forth in this subpart and the emission limitations referred to in this
subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of non-operation
of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
    (2) Equipment leak requirements of Sec.  63.1294 shall apply at all
times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) in which the lines are drained and
depressurized resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
equipment leak requirements apply.
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during
times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment if the
shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to
such items of equipment.
    (4) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator 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 the
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
    (e) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in paragraphs Sec. Sec.  63.1293, 63.1294, 63.1297, 63.1298,
63.1300, and 63.1301, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards
that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate
penalties may be assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense.
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator
must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health;
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. This
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise
required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant
standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If
such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less
than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the
affirmative defense report may be included in the second compliance,
deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
0
3. Section 63.1291 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1291  Compliance schedule.

    (a) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with all
provisions of this subpart no later than October 8, 2001, with the
exception of Sec.  63.1297. Affected sources subject to the
requirements of Sec.  63.1297 shall be in compliance with the
requirements of this section on or before [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1292 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a definition for ``affirmative defense'' in alphabetical
order;
0
b. Revising the definitions for ``HAP-based,'' ``Reconstructed
source,'' ``Storage vessel'' and ``Transfer pump''; and
0
c. Removing the definitions for ``High-pressure mixhead,''
``Indentation Force Deflection (IFD),'' ``In HAP ABA service,''
``Recovery device,'' ``Run of foam,'' and ``Transfer vehicle''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1292  Definitions.

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

Sec.  63.1293  Standards for slabstock flexible polyurethane foam
production.

    Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock affected
source shall comply with Sec. Sec.  63.1294, 63.1297 and 63.1298.
0
6. Section 63.1294 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (c) and

(d)(2)(ii), and by adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

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

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

Sec.  63.1295  [Removed and Reserved]

0
7. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1295.

Sec.  63.1296  [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1296.
0
9. Revise Sec.  63.1297 to read as follows:

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

    Each owner or operator of a new or existing slabstock affected
source shall not use HAP or a HAP-based material as an ABA.
0
10. Revise Sec.  63.1298 to read as follows:

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

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

Sec.  63.1299  [Removed and Reserved]

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

Sec.  63.1302  Applicability of subpart A requirements.

    The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with the
applicable requirements of subpart A of this part, as specified in
Table 1 of this subpart.
0
13. Section 63.1303 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Removing paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
d. Removing paragraphs (c), (d) and (e).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1303  Monitoring requirements.

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

Sec.  63.1304  [Removed and Reserved]

0
14. Remove and reserve Sec.  63.1304.
0
15. Section 63.1306 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (c);
0
b. Redesigating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c) introductory text and
(c)(3);
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d);
0
e. Revising paragraph (f);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (e);
0
g. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (e)(1) and (2); and
0
h. Adding a new paragraph (g).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1306  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Notification of compliance status. Each affected source shall
submit a notification of compliance status report no later than 180
days after the compliance date. For slabstock affected sources, this
report shall contain the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section, as applicable. This report shall contain
the information listed in paragraph (c)(4) of this section for molded
foam processes and in paragraph (c)(5) of this section for rebond foam
processes.
* * * * *
    (3) A statement that the slabstock foam affected source is in
compliance with Sec. Sec.  63.1297 and 63.1298, or a statement that
slabstock foam processes at an affected source are in compliance with
Sec. Sec.  63.1297 and 63.1298.
* * * * *
    (d) Semiannual reports. Each slabstock affected source shall submit
a report containing the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) of this section semiannually no later than 60 days after
the end of each 180 day period. The first report shall be submitted no
later than 240 days after the date that the Notification of Compliance
Status is due and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on the date
that the Notification of Compliance Status Report is due.
    (1) For sources complying with the storage vessel provisions of
Sec.  63.1294(a) using a carbon adsorption system, unloading events
that occurred after breakthrough was detected and before the carbon was
replaced.
    (2) Any equipment leaks that were not repaired in accordance with
Sec. Sec.  63.1294(b)(2)(iii) and 63.1294(c).
    (3) Any leaks in vapor return lines that were not repaired in
accordance with Sec.  63.1294(a)(1)(ii).
    (e) * * *
    (1) The compliance certification shall be based on information
consistent with that contained in Sec.  63.1308, as applicable.
    (2) A compliance certification required pursuant to a state or
local operating permit program may be used to satisfy the requirements
of this section, provided that the compliance certification is based on
information consistent with that contained in Sec.  63.1308, and
provided that the Administrator has approved the state or local
operating permit program under part 70 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (f) Malfunction reports. If a source fails to meet an applicable
standard, slabstock affected sources must report such events in the
next semiannual report and molded and rebond affected sources must
report such events in the next annual compliance certification. Report
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each
instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each
failure, the report must include a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a

description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (g) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the results of the
performance tests required by this subpart according to the methods
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of
the performance test to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer
electronic transfer via EPA-provided software, unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators, who claim that some
of the information being submitted for performance tests is
confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file
using EPA-provided software that includes information claimed to be CBI
on a compact disk, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The
same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA by direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software.
    (2) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are
not compatible with the EPA-provided software, the owner or operator
shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator
at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.
0
16. Section 63.1307 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(2) and redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) as paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
0
b. Revising the newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text,
(a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(3)(i) introductory
text and (b)(3)(i)(B);
0
e. Removing paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) introductory text and (b)(3)(ii)(A);
0
g. Removing paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D);
0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(E) through (b)(3)(ii)(H) as
(b)(3)(ii)(D) through (b)(3)(ii)(G);
0
i. Revising paragraph (c);
0
j. Removing paragraph (d);
0
k. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (h) as (d) through (g);
0
l. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e); and
0
m. Adding paragraph (h).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1307  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) For storage vessels complying through the use of a carbon
adsorption system, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or (ii), and paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) For affected sources monitoring at an interval no greater than
20 percent of the carbon replacement interval, in accordance with Sec.
63.1303(a)(2), the records listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B)
of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) For storage vessels complying through the use of a vapor return
line, paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) * * * (1) A list of components in diisocyanate service.
* * * * *
    (3) When a leak is detected as specified in Sec. Sec.
63.1294(b)(2)(ii) and 63.1294(c), the requirements listed in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section apply:
    (i) Leaking equipment shall be identified in accordance with the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (B) The identification on equipment may be removed after it has
been repaired.
    (ii) The information in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (G) shall
be recorded for leaking components.
    (A) The operator identification number and the equipment
identification number.
* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to Sec.
63.1297 shall maintain a product data sheet for each ABA used which
includes the HAP content, in kg of HAP/kg solids (lb HAP/lb solids).
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of an affected source following the
compliance methods in Sec.  63.1308(b)(1) shall maintain records of
each use of a vapor return line during unloading, of any leaks detected
during unloading, and of repairs of leaks detected during unloading.
* * * * *
    (h) Malfunction records. Records shall be kept as specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section for affected sources.
Records are not required for emission points that do not require
control under this subpart.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the
date, time and duration of the failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.1290(d) and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
0
17. Section 63.1308 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(6), and (c);
0
c. Removing paragraph (d); and
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (e) as (d).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1308  Compliance demonstrations.

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

the following paragraphs shall be considered a separate violation.
    (1) For each slabstock foam affected source subject to the
provisions in Sec.  63.1297, each calendar day that a HAP ABA or HAP-
based material is used as an ABA;
    (2) For each slabstock foam affected source subject to the
provisions of Sec.  63.1298, each calendar day that a HAP-based
material is used as an equipment cleaner.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 63.1309 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(4) and
redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(4).
0
19. Remove Table 1 to Subpart III of part 63.
0
20. Redesignate Table 2 to Subpart III of Part 63 as Table 1 to Subpart
III of Part 63 and amend newly redesignated Table 1 by:
0
a. Revising the heading of newly redesignated Table 1;
0
b. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2);
0
c. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(ii) and Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
0
d. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(e)(3);
0
e. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(e)(2)-(3):
0
f. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(f)-(g);
0
g. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(f)(1), Sec.  63.6(f)(2)-(3), and Sec.
63.6(g);
0
h. Removing entry Sec.  63.10(a)-(b);
0
i. Adding entries Sec.  63.10(a), Sec.  63.10(b)(1), Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(i), Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(ii); Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iii); Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(xi); Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xii); Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii),
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv); and Sec.  63.10(b)(3);
0
j. Removing entry Sec.  63.10(d)(4)-(5); and
0
k. Adding entries Sec.  63.10(d)(4) and Sec.  63.10(d)(5).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart III of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
               (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart III
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Applies to  subpart
     Subpart A reference               III                 Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)........  NO..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1290(d)(4) for
                                                     general duty
                                                     requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).......  NO.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)......  YES.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)-(3).......  NO.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)...........  NO.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).......  YES.
Sec.   63.6(g)..............  YES.

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(a).............  YES.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)..........  YES.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).......  NO.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)......  NO..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1307(h) for
                                                     recordkeeping of
                                                     (1) date, time and
                                                     duration; (2)
                                                     listing of affected
                                                     source or equipment
                                                     and an estimate of
                                                     the volume of each
                                                     regulated pollutant
                                                     emitted over the
                                                     standard; and (3)
                                                     actions to minimize
                                                     emissions and any
                                                     actions taken at
                                                     the discretion of
                                                     the owner or
                                                     operator to prevent
                                                     recurrence of the
                                                     failure to meet an
                                                     applicable
                                                     requirement.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).....  YES.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(xi).  NO.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii).....  YES.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....  NO.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv).....  YES.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)..........  YES.

                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)..........  YES.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)..........  NO..................  See Sec.
                                                     63.1306(f) for
                                                     malfunction
                                                     reporting
                                                     requirements.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Table 2 to Subpart III of Part 63--Compliance Requirements for Slabstock Foam Production Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Emission, work
                                  Emission point   practice, and
         Emission point             compliance       equipment      Monitoring     Recordkeeping     Reporting
                                      option         standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
ABAs Sec.   63.1297.............             N/A  Sec.   63.1297  ..............            Sec.  ..............
                                                                                63.1307(e)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
22. Remove Table 4 to Subpart III of Part 63.
0
23. Redesignate Table 5 to Subpart III of Part 63 as Table 3 to Subpart
III of Part 63 and amend newly redesignated Table 3 by revising the
heading to read as follows:
    Table 3 to Subpart III of Part 63--Compliance Requirements for
Molded and Rebond Foam Production Affected Sources
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-24276 Filed 11-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P