[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64385-64407]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24019]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAPs
regulate their HAP emissions?
    C. What changes did we propose for flexible polyurethane foam
fabrication operations for major sources and flexible polyurethane
foam production and fabrication area sources in our January 11,
2021, proposal?
III. What is included in these final rules?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication
Operations source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
reviews for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication
Operations source category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production and Fabrication area source categories?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to section
112(d)(2) and (3) for the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Fabrication Operations source category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the major source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations
source category and the Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and
Fabrication area source categories?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Major Source Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Major Source Flexible Polyurethane
Foam Fabrication Operations Source Category and the Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Source Categories
    C. Actions Taken Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3)
    D. Removal of the SSM Exemptions
    E. Electronic Reporting
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the

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

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by January 18, 2022. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All
other sources are ``area sources.'' For major sources, these standards
are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In
developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to
consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or
techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume
of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. For area
sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set
standards based on generally available control technologies or
management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
    In the second stage of the NESHAP regulatory process, the CAA
requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to
as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, which is applicable to both MACT and GACT standards,
we must review the technology-based standards and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review,
which is limited to the MACT standards, we must evaluate the risk to
public health remaining after application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review,
if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to
revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more
information on the statutory authority for this rule, see the proposal
preamble (86 FR 1868, January 11, 2021) and the memorandum, CAA Section
112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology,
December 14, 2017, available in the docket for this action (Document ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. What is included in these final rules?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the major source
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP to remove and
revise provisions related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the court vacated portions of
two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the
emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated
the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. Previously, the 2003 Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Fabrication Operations NESHAP included exemptions for standards during
SSM. As explained in section IV.E of the January 2021 proposal preamble
(86 FR 1868 at 1885, January 11, 2021), the EPA proposed that the
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations NESHAP would require
that the standards always apply, consistent with the court decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    Table 7 to subpart MMMMM of 40 CFR part 63 (General Provisions
applicability table) is being revised to change the specification of
the requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We eliminated or
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
eliminated SSM exemptions. The EPA also made other harmonizing changes
to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language
in the absence of the SSM exemptions. We proposed to remove the SSM
exemptions such that the standards always apply because we determined
that facilities in this source category can always meet the applicable
emission standards in the NESHAP, including periods of startup and
shutdown, without additional standards or work practices. We received
no information to cause us to change our conclusion; therefore, the EPA
is finalizing the removal of the SSM exemptions and is requiring that
the standards always apply. The legal rationale and detailed changes
for startup and shutdown periods that we are finalizing here are set
forth in the January 11, 2021, preamble to the proposed rule. See 86 FR
1868 at 1885 and 1886.
    Further, as proposed, the EPA is not including standards for
malfunctions. As discussed in the proposal preamble, the EPA interprets
CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of
malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards, although the EPA has the discretion to set standards for
malfunctions where feasible. See 86 FR 1868 at 1885 and 1886.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Residual Risk Review for the Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Fabrication Operations Source Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Removal of the SSM Exemptions

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

E. Electronic Reporting

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

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

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

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

E. What are the benefits?

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

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

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

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

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

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections IV.A of this preamble.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *
    (b) For each flame lamination affected source, you must be in
compliance with the requirements in this subpart at all times.
    (c) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts
to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have
been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in
compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
    (d) For flame lamination affected sources in Sec.  63.8786 using a
control device to comply with the emission limitations in Table 1 to
this subpart, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and
maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment during the
period between the compliance date specified for your flame lamination
affected source in Sec.  63.8786 and the date upon which continuous
compliance monitoring systems required by Sec.  63.8810(c) have been
installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have been
set.
* * * * *
    (f) For each monitoring system required by Sec.  63.8810(c) for
flame lamination sources, you must develop and submit for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.8816   What notifications must I submit and when?

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

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

Sec.  63.8818   What reports must I submit and when?

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

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

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

Sec.  63.8820   What records must I keep?

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

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

Sec.  63.8830   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *

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

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

          Table 1 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Emission Limits
As stated in Sec.   63.8790(a), you must comply with the emission limits
                         in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
3. Each existing flame lamination        Emit no more than 1.45 pounds
 affected source.                         per hour of HCl per flame
                                          lamination line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

* * * * *

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

 Table 3 to Subpart MMMMM of Part 63--Performance Test Requirements for
    Existing, New, or Reconstructed Flame Lamination Affected Sources
 As stated in Sec.   63.8800, you must comply with the requirements for
performance tests for flame lamination affected sources in the following
table using the requirements in rows 1 through 5 of the table if you are
   measuring HCl and using a scrubber, row 6 for new or reconstructed
 sources measuring HCN and using a scrubber, and row 7 if you are using
   any other control device. For existing sources not using a control
  device, you must comply with row 8 and rows 1 through 4 of the table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  For each existing, new, or
reconstructed flame lamination                        According to the
 affected source, you must . .     Using . . .           following
               .                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Select sampling port's       Method 1 or 1A in  Sampling sites must
 location and the number of      appendix A to      be located at the
 traverse ports.                 part 60 of this    inlet and outlet of
                                 chapter.           the scrubber and
                                                    prior to any
                                                    releases to the
                                                    atmosphere.