Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 219 November 13, 2014 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

NESHAP Risk and Technology Review for the Mineral Wool and Wool 

Fiberglass Industries; NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Area Sources; 

Proposed Rule 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9918–22–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ90 

NESHAP Risk and Technology Review 

for the Mineral Wool and Wool 

Fiberglass Industries; NESHAP for 

Wool Fiberglass Area Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; Notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

amendments in addition to those 

proposed on November 25, 2011, and 

April 15, 2013, for the Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source categories. This 

action addresses comments received on 

previous proposals, explains changes to 

previously proposed limits for sources 

in these industries and clarifies our use 

of the upper prediction limit (UPL) in 

setting MACT floors. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is taking comments on only aspects of 

the proposed rules that are discussed in 

this document. When finalized, these 

proposed standards would increase the 

level of environmental protection. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 15, 

2014. Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

having full effect if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before December 15, 2014. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

November 18, 2014, we will hold a 

public hearing on November 28, 2014 at 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on 

the proposed Mineral Wool risk and 

technology review (RTR) amendments, 

identified by EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1041; or the wool fiberglass area source 

rule and the major source Wool 

Fiberglass RTR amendments, identified 

by Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042; by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-Mail: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–1041 or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1041 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 or EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–1042, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1041 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments on 

the Mineral Wool RTR to Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and 

direct your comments on the Wool 

Fiberglass RTR and proposed area 

source rule to Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–1042. The EPA’s policy 

is that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket: The EPA has established 

dockets for these rulemakings under 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1041 (Mineral Wool Production) 

and EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 (Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing). All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

November 18, 2014, the public hearing 

will be held on November 28, 2014 at 

the EPA’s campus at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. The hearing will 

begin at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard 

Time) and conclude at 5:00 p.m. 

(Eastern Standard Time). Please contact 

Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541–7966 or 

at garrett.pamela@epa.gov to register to 

speak at the hearing or to inquire as to 

whether or not a hearing will be held. 

The last day to pre-register in advance 

to speak at the hearings will be 

November 25, 2014. Additionally, 

requests to speak will be taken the day 

of the hearings at the hearing 

registration desk, although preferences 

on speaking times may not be able to be 

fulfilled. If you require the service of a 

translator or special accommodations 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing, as we may not 

be able to arrange such accommodations 

without advance notice. The hearings 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

action. The EPA will make every effort 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68013 

to accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. Because these hearings are 

being held at U.S. government facilities, 

individuals planning to attend the 

hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. Please note that the 

REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 

2005, established new requirements for 

entering federal facilities. If your 

driver’s license is issued by Alaska, 

American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Montana, New York, 

Oklahoma or the state of Washington, 

you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal 

building. Acceptable alternative forms 

of identification include: Federal 

employee badges, passports, enhanced 

driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you 

will need to obtain a property pass for 

any personal belongings you bring with 

you. Upon leaving the building, you 

will be required to return this property 

pass to the security desk. No large signs 

will be allowed in the building, cameras 

may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be 

allowed on federal property for security 

reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. 

Garrett if they will need specific 

equipment, or if there are other special 

needs related to providing comments at 

the hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the 

hearings and written statements will be 

included in the docket for the 

rulemaking. The EPA will make every 

effort to follow the schedule as closely 

as possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. Again a hearing will only be 

held if requested by November 18, 2014. 

Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 

919–541–7966 or at garrett.pamela@

epa.gov or visit http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/woolfib/woolfipg.html to determine 

if a hearing will be held. If the EPA 

holds a public hearing, the EPA will 

keep the record of the hearing open for 

30 days after completion of the hearing 

to provide an opportunity for 

submission of rebuttal and 

supplementary information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about these proposed actions, 

contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

04), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–5167; fax number: 

(919) 541–5450; and email address: 

fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to 

a particular entity, contact Scott 

Throwe, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Mail Code: 2227A, Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–7013; fax number: (202) 564–0050; 

email address: throwe.scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. We use 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: 

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

BDL below the detection level 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COS Carbonyl sulfide 

CRT cathode-ray tubes 

DESP dry electrostatic precipitator 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESP electrostatic precipitators 

FA flame attenuation 

GACT generally available control 

technology 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen chloride 

HF Hydrogen fluoride 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

lb/ton pounds per ton 

lb/year pounds per year 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NaOH Sodium hydroxide 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NPV net present value 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RDL representative detection level 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RS rotary spin 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

tpy tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

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. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. Summary of the November 25, 2011, 

Proposal 

B. Summary of the April 15, 2013, 

Supplemental Proposal 

C. What is the purpose of this 

supplemental proposal? 

III. What are the proposed changes and 

rationale for these rules? 

A. What are the proposed changes that 

affect all rules in this action and what is 

our rationale? 

B. What are the proposed changes in this 

action that affect both the Mineral Wool 

Production and the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing RTR rules, and what is 

our rationale? 

C. What are the proposed rule amendments 

that affect only the Mineral Wool 

Production source category and what is 

our rationale? 

D. What are the proposed rule amendments 

for major sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category and what 

is our rationale? 

E. What are the changes to the previously 

proposed rule requirements for area 

sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category and what 

is our rationale? 

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to 

Mineral Wool Production (Subpart DDD) 

and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

(Subparts NNN and NN) 

A. Subpart DDD—Mineral Wool 

Production MACT Rule 

B. Subpart NNN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing MACT Rule 

C. Subpart NN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Area Source (GACT) Rule 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

NESHAP and associated regulated 

industrial source categories that are the 

subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not 

intended to be exhaustive but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding the 

entities that this proposed action is 

likely to affect. These proposed 

standards, once promulgated, will be 

directly applicable to the affected 

sources. Federal, state, local and tribal 

government entities would not be 

affected by this proposed action. As 

defined in the ‘‘Initial List of Categories 

of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of 

the CAA Amendments of 1990’’ (see 57 

FR 31576, July 16, 1992), the Mineral 

Wool Production source category is any 

facility engaged in producing mineral 

wool fiber from slag, rock or other 

materials, excluding sand or glass. The 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category is any facility engaged in the 

manufacture of wool fiberglass on a 

rotary spin manufacturing line or on a 

flame attenuation manufacturing line. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS Code a

Mineral Wool Production ............................................................ Mineral Wool Production ............................................................ 327993 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing .................................................. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing .................................................. 327993 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

dockets, an electronic copy of this 

action is available on the Internet 

through the EPA’s Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 

of this proposed action at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

minwool.minwopg.html and http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

woolfib.woolfipg.html. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same Web 

site. Information on the overall residual 

risk and technology review program is 

available at the following Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/

rtrpg.html. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

of the comment that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM clearly indicating that 

it does not contain CBI. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI only to the following address: 

Susan Fairchild, c/o OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 (Mineral 

Wool) or EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 

(Wool Fiberglass). 

II. Background 

A. Summary of the November 25, 2011, 

Proposal 

On November 25, 2011, (76 FR 

72770), the EPA proposed revisions to 

the Mineral Wool Production and the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subparts DDD 

and NNN, respectively, to address the 

results of the RTR that the EPA is 

required to conduct under sections 

112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) (76 FR 72770). In 

the November 25, 2011, document, we 

proposed several amendments to both 

NESHAP and announced our intention 

to list and regulate area sources in the 

wool fiberglass area source category 

pending the collection of new test data. 

B. Summary of the April 15, 2013, 

Supplemental Proposal 

On April 15, 2013, (78 FR 22369), the 

EPA published a supplemental proposal 

that made corrections to the November 

2011 proposal for the Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source categories, 

addressed certain comments received on 

the earlier November 25, 2011 proposal, 

added gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at 

area sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category to the 

category list, under CAA sections 

112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), and proposed 

first time standards for these sources 

under CAA section 112(d)(5). 

C. What is the purpose of this 

supplemental proposal? 

This document also proposes 

revisions and clarifications to the 

previous proposals, including, but not 

limited to: 

• Additional explanation of the upper 

prediction limit (UPL) approach; 

• an explanation of our approach to 

limited datasets; 

• an explanation of why we are 

withdrawing the proposed provisions 

establishing an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions; 

• proposed basis for our 

determination on ecological effects of 

pollutants emitted from major sources 

in these source categories; 

• work practice requirements at 

startup and shutdown for Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source categories under 

CAA section 112(h)(2); 

• changes to previously proposed 

emission limits for the Mineral Wool 

Production source category; 

• changes to previously proposed 

standards for both major and area 

sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category. 

We are requesting comments on only 

these aspects of the previously proposed 

requirements for the Mineral Wool 

Production RTR, the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing RTR, and the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing generally 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68015 

available control technology (GACT) 

rule that are presented in this 

supplemental proposal. 

III. What are the proposed changes and 

rationale for these rules? 

A. What are the proposed changes that 

affect all rules in this action and what 

is our rationale? 

1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 

In the 2011 proposal, we proposed to 

eliminate two provisions that exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of SSM. We also 

included provisions for affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations 

of emission standards caused by 

malfunctions. Periods of startup, normal 

operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a 

source’s operations. Malfunctions, in 

contrast, are neither predictable nor 

routine. Instead they are, by definition 

sudden, infrequent and not reasonably 

preventable failures of emissions 

control, process or monitoring 

equipment. As explained in the 2011 

proposal, the EPA interprets CAA 

section 112 as not requiring emissions 

that occur during periods of 

malfunction to be factored into 

development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under section 112, emissions 

standards for new sources must be no 

less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ 

by the best controlled similar source 

and for existing sources generally must 

be no less stringent than the average 

emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the 

best performing 12 percent of sources in 

the category. There is nothing in section 

112 that directs the Agency to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 

sources when setting emission 

standards. As the D.C. Circuit has 

recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in section 

112 requires the Agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. A 

malfunction should not be treated in the 

same manner as the type of variation in 

performance that occurs during routine 

operations of a source. A malfunction is 

a failure of the source to perform in a 

‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no 

statutory language compels the EPA to 

consider such events in setting section 

112 standards. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99 percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shut down, the 

source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device 

was repaired. The source’s emissions 

during the malfunction would be 100 

times higher than during normal 

operations. As such, the emissions over 

a 4-day malfunction period would 

exceed the annual emissions of the 

source during normal operations. As 

this example illustrates, accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are not reflective of (and 

significantly less stringent than) levels 

that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is 

reasonable to interpret section 112 to 

avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach 

to malfunctions is consistent with 

section 112 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 

malfunction). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that enforcement action against a 

source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, section 112 

is reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. 

As noted above, the 2011 proposal 

included an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions. EPA included the 

affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal 

as it had in several prior rules in an 

effort to create a system that 

incorporates some flexibility, 

recognizing that there is a tension, 

inherent in many types of air regulation, 

to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the 

control of the source. Although the EPA 

recognized that its case-by-case 

enforcement discretion provides 

sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal 

and in several prior rules to provide a 

more formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68016 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Letter from Angus E. Crane, NAIMA Executive 

Vice President General Counsel to Susan Fairchild, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 6, 

2014. Regarding NAIMA’s Responses To EPA’s 

Questions—Work Practices For Startup and 

Shutdown of Mineral Wool Cupolas. 

2Letter from Angus E. Crane, NAIMA Executive 

Vice President General Counsel to Susan Fairchild, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 6, 

2014. Regarding NAIMA’s Responses To EPA’s 

Questions—Work Practices For Startup and 

Shutdown of Wool Fiberglass Furnaces. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. The United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s 

Section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 

749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating 

affirmative defense provisions in 

Section 112 rule establishing emission 

standards for Portland cement kilns). 

The court found that the EPA lacked 

authority to establish an affirmative 

defense for private civil suits and held 

that under the CAA, the authority to 

determine civil penalty amounts in such 

cases lies exclusively with the courts, 

not the EPA. Specifically, the Court 

found: ‘‘As the language of the statute 

makes clear, the courts determine, on a 

case-by-case basis, whether civil 

penalties are ‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC 

at 1063 *21 (‘‘[U]nder this statute, 

deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit 

is a job for the courts, not EPA.’’). 

In light of NRDC, the EPA is 

withdrawing its proposal to include a 

regulatory affirmative defense provision 

in this rulemaking and in this proposal 

has eliminated the provisions related to 

affirmative defense contained in 

§§ 63.1180 and 63.1386 (the affirmative 

defense provisions in the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770). As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit 

recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the 

discretion to consider any defense 

raised and determine whether penalties 

are appropriate. Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 749 

F.3d 1055, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2014) 

(arguments that violation were caused 

by unavoidable technology failure can 

be made to the courts in future civil 

cases when the issue arises). The same 

logic applies to EPA administrative 

enforcement actions. 

2. Work Practice Standards for Periods 

of Startup and Shutdown 

In our April 2013 proposal, we 

proposed an alternative compliance 

provision that would allow sources 

subject to the Mineral Wool Production 

NESHAP, the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP and the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing GACT 

standard to demonstrate compliance 

with applicable standards during 

startup and shutdown. (78 FR 22378 

and 22388). Specifically, we proposed 

that sources would keep records 

showing that emissions were routed to 

the air pollution control devices and 

that these control devices were operated 

at the parameters established during the 

most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the emission 

limit. For electric cold-top furnaces in 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category, we also proposed 

limiting raw material content at startup 

and shutdown to only cullet because 

using cullet reduces hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emissions, and this 

particular furnace design does not allow 

the control device to be operated 

continuously during startup. For all 

other glass melting furnaces, we also 

added a requirement for preheating the 

empty furnace using only natural gas as 

a means of demonstrating compliance 

with the emission limits at startup. (78 

FR 22388). However, we did not 

specifically propose these requirements 

under CAA section 112(h)(2). 

After our April 2013 document, we 

received and reviewed information from 

the mineral wool and wool fiberglass 

industries regarding the work practices 

used during periods of startup and 

shutdown.1 2 The best performers in the 

wool fiberglass and mineral wool 

industries identified a variety of 

practices used by mineral wool and 

wool fiberglass manufacturers to 

minimize emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown. We analyzed and 

characterized their practices according 

to the expected effectiveness of the 

industries’ measures and according to 

the best performers in these industries. 

At this time, we are proposing under 

CAA section 112(h)(2) that mineral wool 

production and wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities comply with 

work practice standards that are used by 

the best performers during periods of 

startup and shutdown (as described in 

Section III.D.6. of this preamble. (Work 

practice standards for previously 

unregulated HCl and HF emissions from 

glass-melting furnaces at major sources.) 

The work practice standards for 

startup and shutdown are also being 

incorporated into the GACT standards 

for wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

sources. 

In order to promulgate a work practice 

standard in lieu of an emission 

standard, the EPA must demonstrate 

that measurement of the emissions is 

not practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. In the case of 

these source categories, emissions are 

not at steady state during startup and 

shutdown (a necessary factor for 

accurate emissions testing), and the 

varying stack conditions, gas 

compositions, and flow rates make 

accurate emission measurements 

impracticable. In addition, startup 

period for mineral wool cupolas, 

typically 2 hours, is too short a time to 

conduct source testing. 

3. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

In the November 25, 2011 proposal 

we stated that we did not believe there 

was a potential for adverse 

environmental effects because ‘‘all 

chronic non-cancer HQ values 

considering actual emissions are less 

than 1 using human health reference 

values.’’ Since that time we conducted 

an environmental risk screening 

assessment for both source categories in 

this rulemaking. Additional information 

on this analysis is available in the risk 

assessment document titled ‘‘Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Categories’’ dated October 2014 and 

available in the docket. 

Of the seven pollutants included in 

the environmental risk screen, the 

source categories in this rulemaking 

emit lead, mercury (elemental and 

divalent), cadmium, hydrogen fluoride 

and hydrogen chloride. In the Tier I 

screening analysis for PB–HAP other 

than lead (which was evaluated 

differently, as noted in the reference 

above), none of the individual modeled 

concentrations for any facility in the 

source categories exceed any of the 

ecological benchmarks (either the 

LOAEL or NOAEL) for mercury or 

cadmium. Therefore, we did not 

conduct a Tier II screening assessment. 

For lead, we did not estimate any 

exceedances of the secondary lead 

NAAQS. For HCL and HF, the average 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68017 

3 Gibbons, R. D. (1987), Statistical Prediction 

Intervals for the Evaluation of Ground-Water 

Quality. Groundwater, 25: 455–465 and Hart, 

Barbara F. and Janet Chaseling, Optimizing Landfill 

Ground Water Analytes—New South Wales, 

Australia, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 

2003, 23, 2. 

4Wan, Can; Xu, Zhao; Pinson, Pierre; Dong, Zhao 

Yang; Wong, Kit Po. Optimal Prediction Intervals of 

Wind Power Generation. 2014. IEEE Transactions 

on Power Systems, ISSN 0885–8950, 29(3): pp. 

1166–1174. 

5 Khosravi, Abbas; Mazloumi, Ehsan; Nahavandi, 

Saeid; Creighton, Doug; van Lint, J. W. C. Prediction 

Intervals to Account for Uncertainties in Travel 

Time Prediction. 2011. IEEE Transactions on 

Intelligent Transportation Systems, ISSN 1524– 

9050, 12(2):537–547. 

6Ashkan Zarnani; Petr Musilek; Jana 

Heckenbergerova. 2014. Clustering numerical 

weather forecasts to obtain statistical prediction 

intervals. Meteorological Applications, ISSN 1350– 

4827. 21(3): 605. 

7Rayer, Stefan; Smith, Stanley K; Tayman, Jeff. 

2009. Empirical Prediction Intervals for County 

Population Forecasts. Population Research and 

Policy Review, 28(6): 773–793. 

8Nicholas A Som; Nicolas P Zegre; Lisa M Ganio; 

Arne E Skaugset. 2012. Corrected prediction 

intervals for change detection in paired watershed 

studies. Hydrological Sciences Journal, ISSN 0262– 

6667, 57(1): 134–143. 

modeled concentration around each 

facility (i.e., the average concentration 

of all off-site data points in the 

modeling domain) did not exceed any 

ecological benchmarks (either the 

LOAEL or NOAEL). In addition, each 

individual modeled concentration of 

hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen 

chloride (i.e., each off-site data point in 

the modeling domain) was below the 

ecological benchmarks for all facilities. 

B. What are the proposed changes in 

this action that affect both the Mineral 

Wool Production and the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR rules, 

and what is our rationale? 

1. How does the EPA use the UPL in 

setting maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards? 

The UPL is the statistical 

methodology the EPA uses as the 

primary tool to account for emissions 

variability when setting emissions 

standards under CAA section 112. The 

UPL is used to calculate the average 

emissions limitation achieved over time 

by the best performing source or 

sources. 

There are several key points that 

underlie the EPA’s methodology for 

calculating MACT floor standards 

through the use of the UPL. First, the 

floor standards reasonably account for 

variability in the emissions of the 

sources used to calculate the standards. 

This variability occurs due to a number 

of factors, including operation of control 

technologies, variation in combustion 

materials and combustion conditions, 

variation in operation of the unit itself 

and variation associated with the 

emission measurement techniques. 

Second, because the emissions data 

available to the EPA are in the form of 

short-term stack tests and the standards 

must be complied with at all times, the 

agency uses the UPL to estimate the 

average emissions performance of the 

units used to establish the MACT floor 

standards at times other than when the 

stack tests were conducted. Thus, the 

UPL results in a limit that represents the 

average emissions limitation achieved 

by the best performing sources over 

time, accounting for variability in 

emissions performance. 

In establishing MACT floors, we use 

the available information to determine 

the average performance of the best 

performing sources (for existing source 

floors) and the average performance of 

the best-controlled similar source (for 

new source floors). Each MACT 

standard is based on data from sources 

whose emissions are expected to vary 

over their long term performance. For 

this reason, and because sources must 

comply with the MACT standards at all 

times, consideration of variability is a 

key factor in establishing these 

standards. In order to account for 

variability that is reflected in the 

available data that we use to calculate 

MACT floors, we use the UPL. For more 

information regarding the general use of 

the UPL and why it is appropriate for 

calculating MACT floors, see the 

memorandum titled, Use of the Upper 

Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT 

Floors (UPL Memo), which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

Furthermore, with regard to 

calculation of MACT Floor limits based 

on limited datasets, we considered 

additional factors as summarized below 

and described in more details in the 

memorandum titled, Approach for 

Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to 

Limited Datasets (Limited Datasets 

Memo), which is available in the docket 

for this action. 

2. What is our approach for applying the 

upper prediction limit to limited 

datasets? 

In previous (November 2011 and 

April 2013) proposals we first ranked 

the test data by the arithmetic average 

of each source’s emissions test results 

and we then performed a UPL 

calculation for the MACT floor 

population for new and existing 

sources, using the average emissions 

data from the best performing source or 

sources. We have recently further 

evaluated the way we apply the UPL 

where we have limited data sets. 

The UPL approach addresses 

variability of emissions data from the 

best performing source or sources in 

setting MACT standards. The UPL also 

accounts for uncertainty associated with 

emission values in a dataset, which can 

be influenced by components such as 

the number of samples available for 

developing MACT standards and the 

number of samples that will be collected 

to assess compliance with the emission 

limit. The UPL approach has been used 

in many environmental science 

applications.345678 As explained in 

more detail in the UPL Memo, the EPA 

used the UPL approach to reasonably 

estimate the emissions performance of 

the best performing source or sources to 

establish MACT floor standards. 

With regard to the derivation of 

MACT limits using limited datasets, the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals raised 

questions regarding the application of 

the UPL to limited datasets in its recent 

decision in National Association of 

Clean Water Agencies v. EPA (NACWA), 

which involved challenges to the EPA’s 

MACT standards for sewage sludge 

incinerators. Since the NACWA 

decision, we have further evaluated this 

issue in the Limited Datasets Memo, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. We followed the proposed 

approach documented in the Limited 

Datasets Memo for each of the proposed 

MACT floor calculations that is based 

on a limited dataset. We seek comments 

on the approach described in the 

Limited Dataset Memo and whether 

there are other approaches we should 

consider for such datasets. We also seek 

comments on the application of this 

approach for the derivation of MACT 

limits based on limited datasets in this 

supplemental proposal, which are 

described in the following section of 

today’s document and in the Limited 

Dataset Memo. 

For further explanation on the 

approach we used to calculate MACT 

floors based on limited datasets, 

including the specific MACT floor 

calculations for the proposed mineral 

wool and wool fiberglass emission 

limits, please see the Limited Datasets 

Memo and the MACT Floor Memo in 

the dockets for these rules. We are 

requesting comment on this proposed 

approach. 

3. How did we apply the approach for 

limited datasets to limited datasets in 

the Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

categories? 

The standards where we had limited 

datasets are listed in sections III C and 

D below. For the Mineral Wool 

Production source category, we have 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68018 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9 Determination of RDL and ‘‘3 × RDL’’ Values for 

Carbonyl Sulfide. 

limited datasets for six pollutants and 

11 subcategories. For the wool fiberglass 

category, we have limited datasets for 

three pollutants and two subcategories. 

We evaluated these specific datasets to 

determine whether it is appropriate to 

make any modifications to the approach 

used to calculate MACT floors for each 

of these datasets. For each dataset, we 

performed the steps outlined in the 

Limited Dataset Memo, including: 

Ensuring that we selected the data 

distribution that best represents each 

dataset; ensuring that the correct 

equation for the distribution was then 

applied to the data; and comparing 

individual components of each limited 

dataset to determine if the standards 

based on limited datasets reasonably 

represent the performance of the units 

included in the dataset. The details of 

each analysis are described and 

presented below in the applicable 

sections for both the Mineral Wool 

Production source category and for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category, and in the applicable MACT 

Floor Memos. We seek comments 

regarding the specific application of the 

limited dataset approach used to derive 

the proposed emissions limits for the 

pollutants described in the MACT Floor 

Memos. 

C. What are the proposed rule 

amendments that affect only the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category and what is our rationale? 

We are proposing revised emission 

limits for cupolas and for bonded lines 

as a result of new representative 

detection limit (RDL) values, new 

source test data and our approach for 

calculating MACT floors based on 

limited data sets, as introduced in 

section III.B of this preamble. 

1. How are the baseline risks different 

from the risks presented in previous 

documents for the RTR? 

The updated draft risk assessment for 

the Mineral Wool Production source 

category, located in the docket for this 

rulemaking, contains updated estimates 

of risk based on actual emissions 

currently emitted by the industry. The 

risk estimates for actual emissions were 

updated to incorporate the following 

model and model reference library 

updates: 

• AERMOD version 11103 was 

updated to version 14134. 

• HEM version 1.3.0 was updated to 

version 1.3.1. 

• Census input files were updated 

from the 2000 census to the 2010 

census. 

• Meteorological input files were 

updated from 1991 data to 2011 data. 

The number of meteorological stations 

contained in the input files increased 

from approximately 200 to more than 

800. 

• The dose response input library was 

revised to include the latest updates. 

• The target organ endpoint input 

library was revised to include the latest 

updates. 

The revisions listed above did not 

change our estimate of risk from actual 

emissions when compared to the risk 

assessment conducted for the April 15, 

2013, supplemental proposal. The risk 

from mineral wool production is driven 

by formaldehyde and continues to be 

well within a level we consider to be 

acceptable (that is, a maximum 

individual risk (MIR) less than 100-in1 million). The MIR for cancer for actual 

baseline emissions remains 10-in-1 

million, with the acute noncancer 

hazard quotient (HQ) remaining at 20 

for the reference exposure level (REL) 

and at 1 for the AEGL–1. The MIR from 

mineral wool production emissions 

under the original MACT standard is 

estimated to be 30-in-1 million 

(formaldehyde). The MIR for emissions 

after implementation of this proposal is 

estimated to be 10-in-1 million. 

Therefore, the MIR based on allowable 

emissions (what sources are permitted 

to emit) after implementation of the RTR 

decreases by a factor of 3 from MACT 

allowable levels. 

2. What are the reasons for changing the 

carbonyl sulfide (COS) emission limits 

for closed-top cupolas? 

The April 15, 2013 proposal 

contained a revised emissions limit for 

new and reconstructed closed-top 

mineral wool cupolas of 0.025 pounds 

(lb)/ton of melt. However, this proposed 

emission limit is very close to the test 

method detection limit of approximately 

0.02 lb/ton melt.9 The expected 

measurement imprecision for an 

emissions value occurring at or near the 

method detection level is about 40 to 50 

percent. This large measure of analytic 

uncertainty decreases as measured 

values increase: Pollutant measurement 

imprecision decreases to a consistent 

relative 10 to 15 percent for values 

measured at a level about 3 times the 

method detection level. See American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers, 

Reference Method Accuracy and 

Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of 

Manual Stack Emission Measurements, 

CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001. Thus, if 

the value equal to three times the 

representative method detection level 

were greater than the calculated floor 

emissions limit, we would conclude 

that the calculated floor emissions limit 

does not account entirely for 

measurement variability. 

That is the case here with the 

carbonyl sulfide (COS) limit for new 

and reconstructed closed-top cupolas. 

The calculated standard (not accounting 

for the inherent analytical variability in 

the measurements) is approximately 

0.02 lb/ton melt. In order to account for 

measurement variability, we multiplied 

the highest reported minimum detection 

level for the analytic method by a factor 

of three which results in a level of 0.061 

lb/ton melt. This represents the lowest 

level that can be reliably measured 

using this test method, and we therefore 

believe that it is the lowest level we can 

set as the MACT limit taking the 

appropriate measurement variability 

into account. 

3. Changes to previously proposed 

emission limits for horizontal combined 

collection and curing bonded lines? 

In addition to our updated approach 

for determining the new source limits 

based on a limited dataset as discussed 

in section III. B of this preamble, we are 

proposing to change the proposed limits 

for formaldehyde, phenol and methanol 

emissions from horizontal collection/

curing lines from previously proposed 

limits (November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770 

at 72789), and April 15, 2013 (78 FR 

22370 at 22386)) due to new test data 

we received subsequent to our April 

2013 proposal. We have since 

conducted a thorough review of both the 

first test, upon which the November 

2011 proposed limits were based, and 

the second test, which supported 

industry’s comments on the level of the 

standard. 

In our review of the new test data, we 

found that emissions were measured at 

very different production rates than 

during the first test. We held 

discussions during several 

teleconferences with the company 

managers, environmental managers and 

the hired testing contractors to obtain 

additional information that would 

explain the widely divergent results 

from the first and second tests. We 

questioned the contracting company 

that conducted the source testing to 

explain under what situation the 

process tested using the same test 

method would yield such widely 

divergent results (which varied up to an 

order of magnitude). 

Each of the source tests included 

three test runs measuring pollutant 

concentrations at a single stack to which 

emissions from both the collection 

process and the curing oven are vented. 

Of the three test runs conducted in the 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68019 

first test, the samples collected were all 

sent to a laboratory for analysis. The 

laboratory reported they received half of 

what was reportedly sent to them for the 

first and second runs, and reported 

receiving 10 times the amount 

reportedly sent to them for the third 

run. These errors alone should result in 

an invalid test. However, we were 

initially unwilling to abandon the first 

test if corrections could be made by the 

laboratory or the field tester to produce 

valid calculations. We found that 

environmental managers could not 

account for the apparent sample and 

collection errors in the first test. 

In our review of the second test, we 

found that all three runs yielded similar 

results and that the laboratory reported 

to have received the same amount of 

sample that the tester reported was 

collected for analysis; these were 

important factors in our quality review 

of the test data. 

For these reasons we concluded that 

the proper action would be to abandon 

the first test in its entirety due to the 

sample collection and reporting errors, 

and use the second test in its place 

because those samples were collected 

and reported correctly. The replacement 

of the first erroneous test with the 

second correct test changes the emission 

limits for the horizontal collection/

curing subcategory. The revised 

emission limits being proposed are 

summarized in Table 2 of this preamble. 

Setting aside the issue of whether the 

source adhered to proper sampling and 

analysis methods, we considered 

whether using data from all six test runs 

from both the first and second tests 

would have resulted in a significantly 

different emission limit, even though 

the first test was invalid. We found that 

while the correct action is to accept only 

the valid emission testing, emission 

limits using all the test data would not 

have yielded appreciably different 

emission limits than the limits we are 

proposing in today’s rule. We are 

requesting comment on the emission 

limits for horizontal combined 

collection and curing lines. 

4. What previously proposed emission 

limits are changing as a result of our 

updated approach to limited datasets? 

As a result of our updated approach 

to evaluate limited datasets (as 

discussed in Section III.B of this 

preamble), we are proposing the 

following for mineral wool cupolas: 

• Hydrogen fluoride (HF) and 

hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions limits 

for two subcategories of new cupolas 

(those processing slag and those not 

processing slag), 

• HCl emission limits for existing 

cupolas processing slag, and 

• COS emission limits for new and 

existing open top cupolas. 

The MACT floor dataset for each 

pollutant from cupola subcategory (e.g., 

open-top, processing slag and not 

processing slag) includes less than 

seven test runs from multiple cupolas. 

For each subcategory of cupola, we also 

identified the best performing unit 

based on average emissions 

performance. After determining the 

dataset distribution for each pollutant 

and ensuring that we used the correct 

equation for each distribution, we 

calculated the MACT floor emission 

limit for both existing and new sources. 

Also based on our updated approach 

to limited datasets, we are proposing 

phenol, formaldehyde and methanol 

emission limits for three subcategories 

of new and existing bonded lines. 

Because one source exists in each of the 

three subcategories of combined 

collection and curing lines, existing and 

new source limits are equal. However, 

as a result of using our updated 

approach for limited datasets, the 

emission limits for phenol, 

formaldehyde and methanol we are 

proposing at this time for three 

subcategories of new and existing 

bonded lines are lower than those 

previously proposed. The MACT floor 

dataset for each pollutant from each 

new combined collection and curing 

line subcategory (e.g., vertical, 

horizontal and drum) includes less than 

seven test runs from a single line that 

we identified as the best performing 

unit based on average emissions 

performance. After determining the 

dataset distribution for each pollutant 

and ensuring that we used the correct 

equation for the distribution, we 

calculated the MACT floor emission 

limit for both existing and new sources. 

Table 2 indicates where changes to 

previously proposed emission limits are 

being newly proposed. 

For each of the limited datasets (for 

both new and existing source floors), we 

evaluated the reasonableness of the 

calculated limit based on two factors. 

First, we reviewed the range of the test 

runs for each pollutant and process (i.e., 

an evaluation of the variance of the 

data). In general, we found the variance 

was determined to be acceptable 

because all measurements were within 

the expected range. Second, we 

compared the calculated UPL to the 

arithmetic average and found that the 

calculated limit was always within 

approximately 2.5 times the arithmetic 

average, a range we find when 

evaluating larger datasets. 

Additionally, for new source emission 

limits, we compared the UPL equation 

components for the individual unit with 

those of the units in the existing source 

floor to determine if our identification 

of the best unit was reasonable. 

The analyses and evaluations we 

performed for the proposed emissions 

limits are discussed in detail in the 

‘‘MACT Floor Memo for the Mineral 

Wool Production Source Category’’ and 

in the ‘‘Limited Datasets Memo for the 

Mineral Wool Production Source 

Category,’’ available in the docket for 

this rule. 

5. Proposed Emission Limits for the 

Mineral Wool Production Source 

Category 

In Table 2 below we present all the 

emission limits for new and existing 

major sources in the Mineral Wool 

Production Source Category as proposed 

in the 2011 proposal, the 2013 

supplemental proposal and in this 

supplemental proposal. We request 

comments on the proposed limits that 

have changed from what we previously 

proposed. 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION

[lb pollutant/ton melt] 

Process Subcategory HAP 2011 

Proposal 

2013 

Proposal 

2014 

Proposal 

Cupolas .......................... Existing Open-top .............................. COS ............................... 3.3 6.8 .................. No change. 

New Open top .................................... COS ............................... 0.017 4.3 .................. 3.2. 

Existing Closed Top ........................... COS ............................... 3.3 3.4 .................. No change. 

New Closed Top ................................ COS ............................... 0.017 0.025 .............. 0.062. 

Existing Processing Slag ................... HF ..................................

HCl .................................

0.014 

0.0096 

0.16 ................

0.21 ................

No change 

0.44. 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68020 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION—Continued 

[lb pollutant/ton melt] 

Process Subcategory HAP 2011 

Proposal 

2013 

Proposal 

2014 

Proposal 

New Processing Slag ......................... HF ..................................

HCl .................................

0.014 

0.0096 

0.16 ................

0.21 ................

0.015 

0.012. 

Existing Not Processing Slag ............ HF ..................................

HCl .................................

0.014 

0.0096 

0.13 ................

0.43 ................

No change 

No change. 

New Not Processing Slag .................. HF ..................................

HCl .................................

0.014 

0.0096 

0.13 ................

0.43 ................

0.018 

0.015. 

Bonded Lines ................. Vertical (Existing and New) ............... Formaldehyde ................

Phenol ............................

Methanol ........................

0.46 

0.52 

0.63 

2.7 ..................

0.74 ................

1.0 ..................

2.4 

0.71 

0.92. 

Horizontal (Existing and New) ........... Formaldehyde ................

Phenol ............................

Methanol ........................

0.054 

0.15 

0.022 

No change .....

No change .....

No change .....

0.63 

0.12 

0.049. 

Drum (Existing and New) ................... Formaldehyde ................

Phenol ............................

Methanol ........................

0.067 

0.0023 

0.00077 

0.18 ................

1.3 ..................

0.48 ................

0.17 

0.85 

0.28. 

D. What are the proposed rule 

amendments for major sources in the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category and what is our rationale? 

We are proposing several changes 

based on comments we received to our 

April 15, 2013, proposed rules for glassmelting furnaces and bonded lines. 

These changes include requirements for 

annual performance tests, extended 

compliance deadlines and changes to 

previously proposed emission limits 

based on our updated approach for 

calculating MACT standards where 

there are limited data sets. 

We also are proposing work practice 

standards for HF and HCl emissions 

from all furnaces subject to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart NNN, under CAA section 

112(h)(2). We are seeking comments on 

only these issues or aspects of 

requirements that are being presented in 

this document. 

1. How are the baseline risks different 

from the risks presented in previous 

documents for the RTR? 

The updated draft risk assessment for 

wool fiberglass manufacturing, located 

in the docket for this rulemaking, 

contains updated estimates of risk based 

on actual emissions currently emitted 

by the industry. The risk estimates for 

actual emissions were updated to 

incorporate the following emissions 

data, model and model reference library 

updates: 

• Changes were made to the actual 

emissions data to reflect 2012 facility 

testing data. 

• AERMOD version 11103 was 

updated to version 14134. 

• HEM version 1.3.0 was updated to 

version 1.3.1. 

• Census input files were updated 

from the 2000 census to the 2010 

census. 

• Meteorological input files were 

updated from 1991 data to 2011 data. 

The number of meteorological stations 

contained in the input files increased 

from approximately 200 to more than 

800. 

• The dose response input library was 

revised to include the latest updates. 

• The target organ endpoint input 

library was revised to include the latest 

updates. 

The revisions listed above did not 

change our estimate of risk from actual 

emissions when compared to the risk 

assessment conducted for the April 15, 

2013 supplemental proposal. The risk 

from wool fiberglass manufacturing is 

driven by formaldehyde and hexavalent 

chromium and continues to be well 

within a level we consider to be 

acceptable (that is, a MIR less than 100- 

in-1 million). The MIR cancer for actual 

baseline emissions remains 20-in-1 

million (formaldehyde), with the acute 

noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the 

REL and at 2 for the AEGL–1 

(formaldehyde). The MIR from wool 

fiberglass manufacturing emissions 

allowed under the original MACT 

standard is estimated to be 60-in-1 

million (formaldehyde). 

2. The Risks After Implementation of 

the Emission Limits in the Rule as 

Proposed 

After implementation of the emission 

limits, emissions of formaldehyde and 

chromium will be reduced. As a result, 

the MIR from wool fiberglass 

manufacturing emissions after 

implementation of this proposal is 

estimated to be 5-in-1 million, with the 

acute noncancer HQ at 7 for the REL 

and at 0.3 for the acute exposure 

guideline levels (AEGL)-1 

(formaldehyde). In addition, the number 

of individuals exposed to cancer risks 

above 10-in-1 million will be reduced 

from 6,900 for actual emissions to zero 

for this proposal, and the number of 

individuals exposed to cancer risks 

above 1-in-1 million will be reduced 

from 1.2 million for actual emissions to 

21,000 for this proposal. 

3. Options and Costs to Achieve 

Chromium Emission Reductions 

Based on information provided by 

industry, we evaluated eight different 

approaches to reducing chromium from 

gas-fired wool fiberglass furnaces. This 

included seven new options, and a reevaluation of the costs associated with 

a sodium hydroxide scrubber control 

option discussed in the previous 

proposal. These air pollution control 

technologies or practices were identified 

by industry as potential compliance 

options to meet the standard. These 

options are as follows: 

• Raw material substitution— 

discontinued use of green glass cullet in 

the raw material furnace charge; this is 

also a pollution prevention option; 

• Furnace rebuild, when chromium 

emissions approach the limit, and 

before the end of the furnace’s useful 

life; 

• Installation of high efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) filters at the 

outlet of the dry electrostatic 

precipitator (DESP); 

• Installation of Venturi scrubber 

technology at the outlet of the DESP; 

• Installation of a 3-stage filter at the 

outlet of the DESP; 

• Installation of a 3-stage filter with 

water cleaning at the outlet of the DESP; 

• Installation of a membrane 

baghouse at the outlet of the DESP; 

• Installation of a caustic scrubber at 

the outlet of the DESP, as previously 

proposed, but with new cost analyses. 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68021 

10Of the 16 gas-fired furnaces in this source 

category, 14 were in operation at the time of testing. 

As a result, the EPA obtained source test data only 

on the 14 operating furnaces. 

According to the results of our 

analyses, rebuilding the furnace when 

chromium emissions approach the limit 

is the most cost-effective approach, and 

the remaining cost discussion in this 

section concerns that control option. 

Our full analysis of the cost 

effectiveness of the various chromium 

emission reduction approaches is 

available in the technology review 

memo located in the docket to this 

proposed rule. 

As a result, we are revising our 

analyses regarding how a wool 

fiberglass manufacturer would choose to 

meet the limits of this proposed rule. 

We are not revising the proposed limits 

or their applicability to all gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces. 

Based on information from industry 

(voluntary information collection 

request (ICR), CAA section 114 

responses, emissions test data), there are 

currently 16 gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces among both major and area 

sources in this source category, 14 of 

which were tested for chromium 

emissions. We estimate that there are six 

gas-fired furnaces located at four 

facilities that currently do not meet the 

proposed chromium compounds 

emission limit. 

We first proposed that a wool 

fiberglass facility could choose to 

rebuild the furnace as a way to comply 

with the chromium emission limits in 

November 25, 2011, document, at 76 FR 

72804. We stated that ‘‘both NaOH 

scrubbers and a furnace rebuild are 

considered cost effective when 

hexavalent chromium levels are high.’’ 

At that time, we surmised that a wool 

fiberglass manufacturer would choose 

non-chromium refractories with which 

to rebuild the furnace. In that document, 

we expected that the highest chromium 

emitting wool fiberglass furnace 

emitting 550 lb chromium per year 

would choose to rebuild the furnace to 

meet the proposed chromium 

compounds limit. We since learned 

from industry that the high chromium 

refractory is needed to withstand the 

high internal temperature, reactivity, 

corrosivity and erosivity of the furnace 

environment, but that some wool 

fiberglass furnaces are structurally and/ 

or functionally designed to emit 

chromium at very low levels. As shown 

by the test data, 10 of the existing 16 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces meet the 

chromium limit without additional 

control beyond the DESP. 

We now estimate the cost impact for 

impacted furnaces based on the example 

from industry practice that highemitting furnaces may be rebuilt (or 

replaced) earlier than they might have 

been otherwise. The associated costing 

of this scenario is referred to as the net 

present value (NPV) approach which is 

described in the EPA Air Pollution 

Control Cost Manual (EPA/452/B–02– 

001), January 2002. 

As part of the data collection effort 

associated with this rulemaking, we 

collected source test data 10 on 14 

furnaces with information on furnace 

age, last rebricking or repair dates, 

current furnace age, and anticipated or 

planned future furnace replacement. We 

also obtained repeat testing for three 

rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. 

Of the 14 tested furnaces, all 4 

furnaces over 12 years old exceeded the 

proposed chromium limit. Of the 10 

furnaces under 12 years old, three 

exceeded the limit (one only 

marginally), and seven tested in 

compliance with (i.e., below) the 

proposed chromium limit. 

We considered two early furnace 

replacement scenarios based on 

information we received. In the first, 

based solely on CAA section 114 

responses and test data, the expected 

furnace life is 12 years and is reduced 

to 10 years for compliance with the 

chromium limit. In the second, based on 

statements from industry stakeholders, 

industry press releases and technical 

literature, the expected furnace life of 10 

years is reduced to 7 years for 

compliance with the chromium limit. 

We decided to use the second (i.e., the 

10/7 NPV) scenario as the basis for this 

industry’s NPV approach in an effort to 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13NO14.169</GPH>
68022 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11Three furnaces were rebuilt in the period 

between the 2010 testing and the 2012 testing. The 

furnaces were rebuilt according to a different 

design, and went through shutdown, 

deconstruction, design, construction, and startup 

phases during a (slightly less than) 2 year period. 

conservatively show (i.e., more likely to 

overstate costs than to understate costs) 

the maximum potential control cost. 

Consequently, for this cost analyses, 

the NPV approach uses the following 

assumptions: (1) Furnace rebuild cost = 

$10 million; (2) normal furnace life 

cycle = 10 years; (3) chromium 

compliant furnace life cycle = 7 years; 

and (4) industry interest rate = 7 

percent. As an overview summary, the 

capital recovery cost is calculated by 

multiplying the NPV incremental cost 

by the capital recovery factor. Using the 

7-year furnace life and a 7 percent 

interest (discount) rate, the annualized 

capital recovery cost was calculated to 

be $212,000 per furnace. A more 

detailed example calculation of the NPV 

approach is provided in the Cost 

Impacts memo located in the docket to 

this proposed rulemaking. 

We found evidence from the industry 

that several companies chose to rebuild 

high-chromium emitting furnaces that 

were more than 6 years old. Data show 

that three furnaces initially tested in 

2010 were rebuilt and re-tested in 2012 

and the results submitted to the EPA. 

While we do not have a complete set of 

data showing total chromium emission 

reductions as a result of all furnace 

rebuilds, we found that of the available 

test data for furnaces that were rebuilt, 

retested and reported, all three achieved 

chromium emission reductions as a 

result of the rebuild. In total, chromium 

emissions were reduced by 47 pounds 

per year, as shown in Table 3 below. 

TABLE 3—REPEATED CHROMIUM TESTING FOR REBUILT FURNACES

Furnace 

2010 Emissions 

rate 

(lb/ton) 

2012 Emission 

rate 

(lb/ton) 

Comments 

2010 Testing 

emissions 

(lb/yr) 

2012 Testing 

emissions 

(lb/yr) 

Oxy-Fuel 1 ........ 0 .000016 0 .0000020 Below proposed limit ................................................ 1 .6 0 .20 

Oxy-Fuel 2 ........ 0 .00040 0 .000021 Below proposed limit ................................................ 25 1 .3 

Oxy-Fuel 3 ........ 0 .00059 0 .00021 Neither is below proposed limit ................................ 35 12 

The results of this new cost analysis 

were total annualized costs of 

approximately $716,000 per year and 

chromium emissions reductions of 567 

lb/year. The cost per lb of emission 

reduction is approximately $1,300 per 

pound. We consider this cost per pound 

reasonable considering the high toxicity 

of hexavalent chromium and this cost is 

consistent with the costs per pound in 

other recent rulemakings. Because the 

chromium limit previously proposed 

under section 112(d)(6) is still cost 

effective, we are not changing the limit 

in this proposal. See section V.B for 

more detailed information on cost 

impacts. 

4. Performance Test Frequency 

In our April 2013 proposal, we also 

proposed reduced testing requirements 

for sources with emissions that are 75 

percent or less of the proposed 

chromium limit. Specifically, we 

proposed chromium testing once every 

three years for sources testing no higher 

than 75 percent of the proposed 

chromium limit, i.e., at least 25 percent 

below the proposed chromium limit (78 

FR 22387). Subsequent to our proposal, 

we conducted an additional review of 

existing test data and found that source 

tests show a sudden ramp-up of 

chromium emissions (at an exponential 

rate) with furnace age. Therefore, a 

potential testing period of three years 

could allow significant emissions of 

hexavalent chromium to occur before 

the source realized emissions were 

increasing. For this reason, we no longer 

believe that reduced testing frequency is 

appropriate and, therefore, we are 

proposing that all gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces at both major and area sources 

would be required to conduct annual 

emissions performance testing for 

chromium compounds using EPA 

Method 29. 

5. Two-Year Compliance Deadline for 

Gas-Fired Glass-Melting Furnaces at 

Both Major and Area Sources 

We previously proposed (on 

November 25, 2011, at 76 FR 72793, and 

on April 15, 2013, at 78 FR 22383–84), 

a 1-year compliance deadline for 

affected sources to meet the chromium 

emission limits of the rule. We received 

several comments requesting additional 

time to install new controls that would 

be effective in removing chromium 

compounds. In response to these 

comments, we are proposing up to 2 

years from the effective date of this 

proposed rule for affected sources to 

comply with the chromium emission 

limits. 

Standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(f)(2) shall not apply until 90 

days after the effective date of the final 

action amending this rule and sources 

may have up to 2 years after the 

effective date of the standard to comply 

if the EPA finds that such period is 

necessary for the installation of controls. 

(CAA section 112(f)(2)(B).) Under CAA 

section 112(i)(3), we must require 

sources to comply as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 3 years 

after promulgation of the standard. 

(Ass’n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 

F.3d 667, 405 U.S. App. DC 100, 2013 

U.S. App. LEXIS 10637, 76 ERC (BNA) 

1609, 43 ELR 20113, 2013 WL 2302713 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). 

We consulted our records from 

voluntary ICR responses, CAA section 

114 responses regarding furnace ages 

and rebuilds, and statements by 

industry regarding furnace 

replacements. These sources of 

information regarding the time period 

required to replace furnace refractory 

range from a few weeks (in the case of 

a ‘‘hot repair,’’ done while the furnace 

is operating), to 20 months for a 

complete furnace deconstruction and 

reconstruction.11

While we no longer believe based on 

available information that add-on 

controls would necessarily be used to 

reduce chromium, we agree that more 

than 1 year may be needed for sources 

to decommission the old furnace and 

install a new furnace (particularly if the 

new furnace is of a different design than 

the one it is replacing, and emits 

chromium at lower rates as it ages). 

We also see no reason to allow area 

sources a longer period of time to 

install, because we found no difference 

between furnaces at major and those at 

area source facilities and companies 

have demonstrated that ‘‘expeditiously 

as possible’’ is a period less than 2 

years. Further, we are proposing that 

area and major sources be subject to 

similar requirements and unnecessary 

delays reducing the levels of chromium 

compound emissions to the atmosphere 

should be avoided for protection of 

human health. Therefore, we are making 

no distinction between major and area 

sources for the chromium compounds 

emission limit compliance deadline, 

and instead proposing that affected 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68023 

sources comply with the chromium 

limits within 2 years of the effective 

date of the final rule. 

6. Work Practice Standards for 

Previously Unregulated HCl and HF 

Emissions From Glass-Melting Furnaces 

at Major Sources 

In our November 2011 proposal, 

consistent with the Brick MACT 

decision, we proposed MACT limits for 

HF and HCl (at 76 FR 72791) that 

reflected the average of the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources, considering variability. We 

received comments that these pollutants 

were emitted at such low levels as to not 

be measurable and hence may not be 

emitted by most furnaces. When we 

reviewed the test data we also found 

that testing for these HAP indicated 

levels that were generally well below 

the detection limit of the test method 

used. Specifically, over 80 percent of all 

tests for HCl and 85 percent of all tests 

for HF were below the detection level of 

the method. In light of this information, 

we proposed to require work practice 

standards for the acid gases HF and HCl 

from furnaces at major sources in our 

April 15, 2013, supplemental proposal, 

under CAA section 112(h)(2). (78 FR 

22387.) We did not however, specify the 

applicable work practice standards at 

that time. 

We note that in response to our April 

2013 proposal, wool fiberglass 

manufacturing owner/operators 

explained to us that emissions of the 

acid gases HF and HCl originate from 

the chloride- and fluoride-bearing 

constituents of the raw materials used to 

manufacture fiberglass. Refined raw 

mineral sands may contain trace 

amounts of fluorides and chlorides, and 

certain sources of external glass cullet 

typically contain significant 

concentrations of chlorides and 

fluorides, which undergo chemical 

transformation in the furnace 

environment to form the acid gases HCl 

and HF. These acid gases are 

undesirable in the wool fiberglass 

furnace environment because they cause 

damage to the furnace instruments 

(thermal sensors, cameras, flow rate 

sensors, etc.). Due to their location 

within the continuous high-temperature 

process, the replacement or repair of 

furnace components (and problems 

occurring as a result of compromised 

furnace components) is very costly. In 

order to protect furnace components, 

wool fiberglass facilities identify, isolate 

and screen out fluoride- and chloridebearing materials. 

According to these facilities, 

chlorides, fluorides and fluorine are 

components of glass from industrial 

(also known as continuous strand, or 

textile) fiberglass, cathode ray tubes 

(CRT), computer monitors that include 

CRT, glass from microwave ovens and 

glass from televisions. HF and HCl 

emissions occur when recycled glass 

from these types of materials enters the 

external cullet stream from the recycling 

center. We have used this information to 

develop and propose the work practice 

standard for wool fiberglass 

manufacturers in this action. 

Wool fiberglass facilities ensure their 

feedstock does not contain chloride-, 

fluoride-, or fluorine-bearing cullet by 

one of two approaches. First, the facility 

may require the providers of external 

cullet to verify that the cullet does not 

include waste glass from the chloride-, 

fluoride- or fluorine-bearing sources 

mentioned above. Alternatively, 

facilities may sample their raw materials 

to show the cullet entering the furnace 

does not contain glass from these types 

of sources. The furnace emissions 

testing shows this is an effective work 

practice to reduce emissions of these 

acid gases. 

In this document, we are, therefore, 

proposing work practice standards for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category that would require wool 

fiberglass facilities to maintain records 

from either cullet suppliers or their 

internal inspections showing that the 

external cullet is free of components 

that would form HF or HCl in the 

furnace exhaust (i.e., chlorides, 

fluorides and fluorine). Facilities would 

maintain quality assurance records for 

raw materials and/or records of glass 

formulations indicating the facility does 

not process fluoride-, fluorine-, or 

chloride-bearing materials in their 

furnaces, and that they thereby maintain 

low HF and HCl emissions. Major 

source facilities would be required to 

make these records available for 

inspection by the permitting authority 

upon demand. Failure to maintain such 

records would constitute a violation 

from the requirement. 

7. What previously proposed emission 

limits are changing as a result of our 

updated approach to limited datasets 

and what is our rationale? 

Only the new source MACT limits are 

changing as a result of our updated 

approach to limited datasets. For each of 

the limited datasets, we evaluated the 

reasonableness of the calculated limit 

based on three factors. First, we 

reviewed the range of the test runs for 

each pollutant and process (i.e., an 

evaluation of the variance of the data). 

In general, we found the variance was 

determined to be acceptable because all 

measurements were within the expected 

range. Second, we compared the 

calculated UPL to the arithmetic 

average, and found that the calculated 

limit was always within approximately 

2.5 times the arithmetic average, a range 

we find when evaluating larger datasets. 

Third, we compared the UPL equation 

components for the individual unit with 

those of the units in the existing source 

floor to determine if our identification 

of the best unit was reasonable. 

We are proposing phenol, 

formaldehyde and methanol emission 

limits for new sources in both rotary 

spin (RS) and flame attenuation (FA) 

subcategories as a result of our updated 

approach to evaluate limited datasets. 

Additionally, we found that one new 

source limit, the methanol limit for the 

FA subcategory, was previously 

proposed equal to the limit for existing 

sources (0.5 lb/ton of glass pulled). The 

new source MACT floor dataset for 

methanol from FA lines includes three 

test runs from a single line (Johns 

Manville, Defiance) that we identified as 

the best performing unit based on 

average emissions performance. 

After determining that the dataset is 

best represented by a lognormal 

distribution and ensuring that we used 

the correct equation for that 

distribution, we compared the 

performance of the best controlled 

similar source to the performance of 

each of the units in the existing source 

floor to determine whether our 

identification of the best controlled 

similar source was reasonable. Based on 

our evaluation of the available data, we 

are now proposing that the MACT floor 

is 0.35 lb/ton glass pulled for methanol 

from new FA lines. 

For further explanation on the 

updated approach we are proposing to 

use for limited datasets, including for 

the MACT floor calculation for 

methanol emissions from FA lines 

please see the ‘‘Limited Datasets Memo 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category’’ and the ‘‘MACT Floor 

Memo for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Source Category’’ in the 

dockets for these rules. We are 

requesting comment on this proposed 

approach. 

8. What are the proposed emission 

limits for major sources in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category? 

Table 4 presents a summary of all the 

proposed emission limits for new and 

existing major sources in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category. We are taking comment only 

on the changes to previously proposed 

limits. However, to provide 

transparency and a complete set of 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68024 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12See the 114 responses from all wool fiberglass 

manufacturers on furnace design, construction, and 

refractory composition. Also, see product 

specification statements from St. Gobain, in 

references. 

13See the Modeling File in the Docket for this 

rule. 

14The Final Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy 

(Strategy) was published on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 

38706). 15The Strategy is discussed at length in the April 

15, 2013 proposed rule for this source category (78 

FR 22370 at 22375–378). 16Source testing conducted in October 1995 at a 

Certainteed facility in Mountaintop, PA, shows 

emissions of PM, including chromium compounds, 

were emitted from two gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. Emissions of chromium from the outlets 

of furnaces M1 and M2 were measured at 534 and 

964 lb/year, respectively (1,498 lb/year, combined). 

Both furnaces were ducted to the same DESP. 

Source testing at the outlet of the DESP measured 

chromium at 11.4 lb/year. Post-control PM 

emissions measured 1.63 tons per year. 

17 DESP are the predominant air pollution control 

devices in place at wool fiberglass gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. Baghouses (fabric filter control) 

may also be effective. Both of these controls remove 

PM, a component of which is chromium in the fine 

particulate form. In our earlier proposals, we had 

theorized that sources would likely use NaOH 

scrubbers following the primary PM control. 

emission limits for this source category, 

we are including all the limits proposed 

up to and including this document in 

Table 4 below. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF WOOL FIBERGLASS NESHAP EMISSION LIMITS FOR MAJOR SOURCES

[lb/ton glass pulled] 

Process HAP 2011 

Proposal 

2013 

Proposal 

2014 

Proposal 

Existing Rotary Spin Lines ............................. Formaldehyde ................................................

Phenol ............................................................

Methanol ........................................................

0.17 

0.19 

0.48 

0.19 ................

0.26 ................

0.83 ................

No change. 

No change. 

No change. 

New Rotary Spin Lines .................................. Formaldehyde ................................................

Phenol ............................................................

Methanol ........................................................

0.020 

0.0011 

0.00067 

0.087 ..............

0.063 ..............

0.61 ................

0.066. 

0.060. 

0.29. 

Existing Flame Attenuation Lines .................. Formaldehyde ................................................

Phenol ............................................................

Methanol ........................................................

5.6 

1.4 

0.50 

No change ......

No change ......

No change ......

No change. 

No change. 

No change. 

New Flame Attenuation Lines ........................ Formaldehyde ................................................

Phenol ............................................................

Methanol ........................................................

3.3 

0.46 

0.50 

No change ......

No change ......

No change ......

2.6. 

0.44. 

0.35. 

Existing and New Furnaces ........................... PM ..................................................................

Chromium Compounds ..................................

0.14 

0.00006 

0.33 ................

No change ......

No change 

No change 

E. What are the changes to the 

previously proposed rule requirements 

for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category and 

what is our rationale? 

In a change from our April 15, 2013, 

proposal, we are no longer proposing to 

establish particulate matter (PM) limits, 

in addition to the chromium compound 

limits, for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources. In the April 

15, 2013, document, we proposed both 

PM and chromium compounds emission 

limits under CAA section 112(d)(5) 

(GACT) for wool fiberglass 

manufacturing gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces at area sources. We received 

comments objecting to the EPA 

requiring area sources to meet emission 

limits for both PM and chromium 

compounds. In one commenter’s 

opinion, separate emission limits for PM 

and for chromium compounds are 

inappropriate because PM would no 

longer be a surrogate for non-mercury 

HAP metals, and limits for every metal 

HAP would have to be established. 

Similarly, another commenter stated 

that we should set emission limits for 

either PM or for chromium compounds, 

but not for both. This commenter further 

recommended the EPA establish only 

the PM limit for wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources. 

After considering these comments, we 

are no longer proposing to establish PM 

limits, in addition to chromium 

compounds, limits for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces that are located at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing area sources. 

As explained in our April 2013 

supplemental proposal, chromium 

compounds are a significant component 

of the refractory used above the glass 

melt line in gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces.12 (78 FR 22373–74).This 

results in gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces emitting particulate that 

contains chromium in larger amounts 

than that of electric furnaces. 

Specifically, PM and chromium 

emissions test data collected from 

industry for development of the 

proposed rule indicates that chromium 

constitutes an average of 0.96 percent of 

PM emissions for gas-fired furnaces, 

which is 13 times higher than the 

average for electric furnaces (0.07 

percent of PM emissions are 

chromium).13 Thus, we believe that 

because chromium compounds are a 

significant component of the refractory 

used above the glass melt line, a greater 

potential for chromium emissions exists 

for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. This 

is not the case for other HAP metals. 

The EPA may use a surrogate to regulate 

HAP if there is reasonable basis to do so 

and in several rulemakings, we have 

used PM as a surrogate ‘‘for HAP metals 

because PM control technology traps 

HAP metal particles and other 

particulates indiscriminately.’’ National 

Lime v. EPA, 233 F.3d at 639. But 

nothing compels the use of a surrogate 

and EPA must in fact ‘‘assure’’ that there 

is a ‘‘correlation’’ between PM and nonmercury HAP metal. Id., at 640. 

As explained in our April 15, 2013 

supplemental proposal, chromium 

emissions can be still fairly significant 

after the emission stream passes through 

any existing PM air pollution control 

device. Setting emission limits for PM 

alone would not achieve the objective of 

the Urban Air Toxics Strategy14 15

(Strategy) because chromium 

compounds is the urban air toxic 

measured in the emissions from gasfired glass-melting furnaces.16

Conversely, setting emission limits for 

chromium alone achieves the objectives 

of the Strategy because controls needed 

to meet the chromium limit will reduce 

both total PM and its chromium 

component as the furnace emissions 

pass through operational PM controls. 

We also note that for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces, chromium and PM 

reductions are achieved due to the cocontrol characteristics of the existing 

controls (the DESP 17). Because owners/ 

operators must maintain PM controls in 

order to continue to meet the chromium 

limits in the rule, PM co-control benefits 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68025 

18 In the Gold Mines Area Source Rule (76 FR 

9450 at 9464) the EPA found that $13,800 per 

pound of mercury was cost effective; in the 

Chromium Electroplating RTR (77 FR 58220 at 

58221), the EPA found that $14,424 per pound of 

chromium at small hard chromium electroplating 

plants was cost effective. 

are realized from the reduction in 

chromium compounds. We also note 

that currently, existing PM controls (the 

DESP with no additional controls) are 

sufficient to meet the chromium 

compounds limit at 10 of the existing 16 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. The 

chromium compound emission limits 

for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at 

new and existing sources under CAA 

section 112 (d)(5) are unchanged from 

the previous proposal. Because it is 

unchanged, we are not taking comment 

on the proposed emissions level (note: 

the previously proposed chromium 

compounds limit was 6 × 10-5 lb per ton 

of melt). As previously discussed, we 

have revised our cost analysis for 

compliance with the major source 

chromium limit. We also revised our 

cost analysis in the same manner for 

meeting the area source chromium limit. 

The cost per ton for area sources is 

$13,300 per pound. This cost per pound 

is higher than the cost for major sources, 

but is still reasonable given the high 

toxicity of hexavalent chromium and it 

is comparable to the cost of other recent 

rulemakings 18 that reduced emissions 

of hexavalent chromium. 

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to 

Mineral Wool Production (Subpart 

DDD) and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (Subparts NNN and NN) 

A. Subpart DDD—Mineral Wool 

Production MACT Rule 

For the proposed amendments to the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category, the air quality, water quality, 

solid waste and energy impacts were 

determined based on the need for 

additional control technologies and 

actions required to meet the proposed 

emissions limits. These proposed 

amendments would maintain emissions 

of COS, formaldehyde, phenol and 

methanol emissions at their current low 

levels. 

We do not anticipate any adverse 

water quality or solid waste impacts 

from the proposed amendments to the 

1999 MACT rule because the proposed 

requirements would not change the 

existing requirements that impact water 

quality or solid waste. 

In this supplemental proposal, we 

have revised the emission limits for 

horizontal collection and curing 

activities based on new test data and 

reevaluated the associated costs. The 

costs presented below in Table 5 replace 

those estimated in the April 2013 

proposed rule. 

As explained in our April 15, 2013, 

supplemental proposal (78 FR 22370, at 

22385), all existing lines that use slag in 

the raw materials receive the slag from 

the iron and steel industry. Some slags 

contain residual amounts of chlorides 

and fluorides which vary by process and 

location. 

All existing lines with closed-top 

cupolas are fitted with RTO which 

convert the high concentrations of COS 

in the cupola exhaust gas to energy that 

is returned to the cupola. This 

technology reduces the consumption of 

coke up to 30 percent and, because of 

the cost of coke, this technology pays for 

itself over a period of several years. 

Emissions of COS are below 0.02 lb COS 

per ton melt when a regenerative 

thermal oxidizer (RTO) is installed for 

energy recovery and new source MACT 

for closed-top cupolas is based upon the 

use of this technology. Open-top 

cupolas do not accommodate RTO. This 

proposed rule establishes a limit of 3.2 

lbs COS per ton melt for new lines with 

open-top cupolas, and 6.8 lbs COS per 

ton melt for existing lines. All lines 

currently in operation can meet this 

limit without new control equipment or 

different input materials, and thus will 

not incur additional costs. 

The total annualized costs for these 

proposed amendments are estimated at 

$48,800 (2013 dollars) for additional 

testing and monitoring. Table 6 below 

provides a summary of the estimated 

costs and emissions reductions 

associated with these proposed 

amendments to the Mineral Wool 

Production NESHAP. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION MACT STANDARDS

(SUBPART DDD) IN THIS ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Estimated 

capital cost 

($MM) 

Estimated 

annual cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP 

emissions 

reductions 

(tons per year) 

Cost effectiveness in $ per 

ton total HAP 

reduction 

Additional testing and monitoring ............................................................ 0 0.049 N/A N/A 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for mineral wool consumers 

and producers nationally, using the 

annual compliance costs estimated for 

this proposed rule. The impacts to 

producers affected by this proposed rule 

are annualized costs of less than 0.01 

percent of their revenues, using the 

most current year available for revenue 

data. Prices and output for mineral wool 

products should increase by no more 

than the impact on cost to revenues for 

producers; thus, mineral wool prices 

should increase by less than 0.01 

percent. Hence, the overall economic 

impact of this proposed rule should be 

low on the affected industries and their 

consumers. For more information, 

please refer to the Economic Impact and 

Small Business Analysis for this 

proposed rulemaking that is in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

B. Subpart NNN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing MACT Rule 

We evaluated the impacts to the 

affected sources based on all available 

information. Two significant sources of 

information were the 2010 and 2011/

2012 emissions testing and subsequent 

conversations with the North American 

Insulation Manufacturers Association 

and individuals operating industry 

facilities. According to the 2010 and 

2012 emissions test data, there are three 

glass-melting furnaces at two major 

source facilities that do not meet the 

proposed chromium compound 

emission limit. 

Our assessment of impacts is based on 

the data from tested gas-fired glassmelting furnaces only, and may not be 

representative of untested furnaces. We 

anticipate that 10 of the 30 wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

currently operating in the United States 

are currently major sources and would 

be affected by these proposed 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68026 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

amendments. We estimate that two of 

the 10 wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities that are major sources would 

rebuild three furnaces before the end of 

their operational lifecycles. 

We expect that these proposed RTR 

amendments would result in reductions 

of 558 lb of chromium compounds. 

Hexavalent chromium can be as much 

as 93 percent (or 547 lb) of the total 

chromium compounds emitted from 

wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces. 

Available information indicates that 

all affected facilities will be able to 

comply with this proposed work 

practice standards for HF and HCl 

without additional controls, and that 

there will be no measurable reduction in 

emissions of these gases. Also, we 

anticipate that there will be no 

reductions in PM emissions due to these 

proposed PM standards because all 

sources currently meet the previously 

proposed PM limit. 

Indirect or secondary air quality 

impacts include impacts that will result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices. We do not anticipate significant 

secondary impacts from the proposed 

amendments to the Wool Fiberglass 

MACT. 

The capital costs for each facility were 

estimated based on the ability of each 

facility to meet the proposed emissions 

limits for PM, chromium compounds, 

formaldehyde, phenol and methanol. 

The memorandum, Cost Impacts of the 

Proposed NESHAP RTR Amendments 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category, includes a complete 

description of the cost estimate methods 

used for this analysis and is available in 

the docket. 

Under these proposed amendments, 

eight of the 10 major source wool 

fiberglass facilities will not incur any 

capital costs to comply with the 

proposed emissions limits. Five 

facilities would be subject to new costs 

for compliance testing on gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces, which will total 

$80,000 annually for the entire industry. 

At this time, there are two facilities with 

a total of three gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces that do not meet the proposed 

emissions limit for chromium 

compounds. We anticipate that these 

facilities would opt to reduce the 

operational life cycle for each of the 

three gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. 

The estimated capital cost of reducing 

the operational furnace life from 10 

years to 7 years is $1,144,000 per 

furnace with a total annualized cost of 

$212,000 per furnace. There are a total 

of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

located at five major source facilities. 

Annual performance testing costs would 

be $10,000 per glass-melting furnace, 

resulting in total glass-melting furnace 

testing costs of $80,000. 

The 10 major source facilities would 

incur total annualized costs of $80,400 

for additional compliance testing on 

their FA and RS manufacturing lines 

and two of those facilities would incur 

a total cost of $1,144,000 for reducing 

the operational life cycle of three gasfired glass-melting furnaces due to the 

proposed rule emission limits. The total 

annualized costs for the proposed 

amendments are estimated at $1.49 

million (2013 dollars). 

Table 6 below summarizes the costs 

and emission reductions associated with 

the proposed amendments. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING MACT 

STANDARDS (SUBPART NNN) IN THIS ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Est. capital 

cost 

($mm) 

Est. total 

annualized 

cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP emissions 

reductions Cost effectiveness Number facilities 

Gas-Fired Glass-Melting Furnaces: 

Reduce furnace life cycle ...................... 1.144 × 3 0.212 × 3 567 pounds chromium compounds 

per year.

1,300 ($ per pound) .. 2 

Additional testing and monitoring for 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.

0 0.01 × 8 N/A ............................ ................................... 5 

RS and FA Manufacturing Lines: 

Operation and Maintenance of thermal 

oxidizer.

0 0.75 123 tons organic HAP 

per year.

6,300 ($ per ton) ....... 6 

Additional testing and monitoring for FA 

and RS lines.

0 0.02 N/A ............................ ................................... 10 

C. Subpart NN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Area Source (GACT) 

Rule 

The impacts presented in this section 

include the air quality, cost, non-air 

quality and economic impacts of 

complying with the proposed GACT 

rule for wool fiberglass manufacturing 

located at area source facilities. 

We have estimated the potential 

emission reductions from 

implementation of the proposed GACT 

emission standards to be 54 lb of 

chromium compounds per year. 

We considered the costs and benefits 

of achieving the proposed emission 

limits and identified five facilities with 

a total of eight glass-melting furnaces 

that would be subject to the proposed 

requirements. All eight glass-melting 

furnaces would have to conduct annual 

testing to demonstrate compliance. 

Based on the emission testing 

conducted in 2011 and 2012, three of 

the eight glass-melting furnaces would 

need to reduce their emissions to meet 

the proposed chromium compound 

emission limits. We estimated that using 

a reduced life cycle approach for those 

furnaces would have a capital 

equipment cost of $1,144,000 for each 

furnace and the total annualized costs 

would be $212,000 per furnace. 

Costs are also incurred for compliance 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of the proposed 

rule. The annual performance testing 

costs are $10,000 per gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Since there are a total 

of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

at the five facilities, the total annual 

testing cost is $80,000. The total 

annualized cost for the wool fiberglass 

manufacturing industry to comply with 

subpart NN requirements is $716,000. 

The estimated HAP reduction is 50 lb of 

chromium compounds. 

While we do not anticipate the 

construction of any new wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities in the next 5 

years, we do expect most, if not all, of 

the 10 major source facilities to convert 

to non-HAP binders and become area 

sources. However, we did not estimate 

new source cost impacts for any 

additional facilities to avoid double 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68027 

counting the costs associated with the 

major source rule (subpart NNN) with 

similar gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

requirements. Table 7 below presents 

the costs to wool fiberglass area sources. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCE

GACT STANDARDS (SUBPART NN) IN THIS ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Est. capital 

cost 

($MM) 

Est. total 

annualized 

cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP emissions 

reductions Cost effectiveness Number facilities 

Reduce furnace life cycle ............................. 1.144 × 3 0.212 × 3 54 pounds per year .. 13,300 ($ per pound) 2 

Additional testing and monitoring for glassmelting furnaces.0 0.01 × 8 N/A ............................ ................................... 5 

The analysis is documented in the 

memorandum, Costs and Emission 

Reductions for the Proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP— 

Area Sources, and is available in the 

docket. 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for wool fiberglass consumers 

and producers nationally, using the 

annual compliance costs estimated for 

this proposed rule. The impacts to 

producers affected by this proposed rule 

are annualized costs of less than 0.02 

percent of their revenues, using the 

most current year available for revenue 

data. Prices and output for wool 

fiberglass products should increase by 

no more than the impact on cost to 

revenues for producers; thus, wool 

fiberglass prices should increase by less 

than 0.02 percent. Hence, the overall 

economic impact of this proposed rule 

should be low on the affected industries 

and their consumers. For more 

information, please refer to the 

Economic Impact and Small Business 

Analysis for this proposed rulemaking 

that is in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

because it does not raise novel legal or 

policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA has 

not submitted this action to OMB for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

In addition, the EPA prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in Costs and 

Emission Reductions for the Proposed 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP—Area Source, in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. A copy 

of the analysis is available in the docket 

for this action and the analysis is briefly 

summarized in section IV.C of this 

preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The ICR document 

prepared by the EPA has been assigned 

EPA ICR No. 2481.01. 

The information requirements are 

based on notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

This proposed rule would require 

maintenance inspections of the control 

devices, and some notifications or 

reports beyond those required by the 

General Provisions. The recordkeeping 

requirements require only the specific 

information needed to determine 

compliance. The information collection 

activities in this ICR include the 

following: Performance tests, operating 

parameter monitoring, preparation of a 

site-specific monitoring plan, 

monitoring and inspection, one-time 

and periodic reports and the 

maintenance of records. Some 

information collection activities 

included in the NESHAP may occur 

within the first 3 years, and are 

presented in this burden estimate, but 

may not occur until 4 or 5 years 

following promulgation of the proposed 

standards for some affected sources. To 

be conservative in our estimate, the 

burden for these items is included in 

this ICR. An initial notification is 

required to notify the Designated 

Administrator of the applicability of this 

subpart, and to identify gas-fired glassmelting furnaces subject to this subpart. 

A notification of performance test must 

be submitted, and a site-specific test 

plan written for the performance test, 

along with a monitoring plan. Following 

the initial performance test, the source 

must submit a notification of 

compliance status that documents the 

performance test and the values for the 

operating parameters. A periodic report 

submitted every 6 months documents 

the values for the operating parameters 

and deviations. Owners or operators of 

mineral wool production and wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities are 

required to keep records of certain 

parameters and information for a period 

of 5 years. We estimate 20 wool 

fiberglass facilities will be subject to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart NN; 10 wool 

fiberglass facilities are currently subject 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN; and 8 

mineral wool facilities are currently 

subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD. 

The annual testing, annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) is summarized as follows: 

Subpart Labor hours Labor cost Non-labor 

capital cost 

Total average 

annual burden 

DDD ................................................................................................................. 123 $25,850 $0 $25,850 

NNN ................................................................................................................. 153 46,789 0 46,789 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68028 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart Labor hours Labor cost Non-labor 

capital cost 

Total average 

annual burden 

NN .................................................................................................................... 77 32,703 0 32,703 

These estimates include initial and 

annual performance tests, conducting 

and documenting semiannual excess 

emission reports, maintenance 

inspections, developing a monitoring 

plan, notifications and recordkeeping. 

Monitoring and testing cost were also 

included in the cost estimates presented 

in the control costs impacts estimates in 

section IV of this preamble. The total 

burden (defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)) for 

the federal government (averaged over 

the first 3 years after the effective date 

of the standard) is estimated to be: 

Subpart Federal Gov’t 

labor hours 

Federal Gov’t 

labor cost 

DDD ... 25 $1,085 

NNN ... 30 1,366 

NN ...... 15 695 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established public dockets for these 

rules, which include these ICRs, under 

Docket ID numbers EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042 (subpart DDD) and EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–1042 (subparts NNN 

and NN). Submit any comments related 

to the ICRs to the EPA and the OMB. 

See ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this document for where to submit 

comments to the EPA. Send comments 

to OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after November 13, 2014, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by December 15, 2014. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, or any other statute, unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA’s) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. For this source 

category, which has the general NAICS 

code 327993 (i.e., Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing), the SBA small business 

size standard is 750 employees 

according to the SBA small business 

standards definitions. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities in the Mineral Wool Production 

and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source categories, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Five of the 

seven mineral wool production parent 

companies affected in this proposed 

rule are considered to be small entities 

per the definition provided in this 

section. There are no small businesses 

in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category. We estimate that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on any of those 

companies. 

While there are some costs imposed 

on affected small businesses as a result 

of this rulemaking, the costs associated 

with this action are less than the costs 

associated with the limits proposed on 

November 25, 2011. Specifically, the 

cost to small entities in the Mineral 

Wool Production source category due to 

the changes in COS, HF and HCl are 

lower as compared to the limits 

proposed on November 25, 2011, and 

April 15, 2013. None of the five small 

mineral wool parent companies are 

expected to have an annualized 

compliance cost of greater than one 

percent of its revenues. All other 

affected parent companies are not small 

businesses according to the SBA small 

business size standard for the affected 

NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, 

we have determined that the impacts for 

this proposed rule do not constitute a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Although these proposed rules would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried 

to mitigate the impact that these rules 

would have on small entities. The 

actions we are proposing to take to 

mitigate impacts on small businesses 

include less frequent compliance testing 

for the entire mineral wool industry and 

subcategorizing the Mineral Wool 

Production source category in 

developing the proposed COS, HF and 

HCl emissions limits than originally 

required in the November 25, 2011, 

proposal. For more information, please 

refer to the economic impact and small 

business analysis that is in the docket. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any 1 year. The 

total annualized cost of these rules is 

estimated to be no more than $2.3 

million (2013$) in any 1 year. Thus, 

these rules are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA, because they contain no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. These rules only impact 

mineral wool and wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities, and, thus, do 

not impact small governments uniquely 

or significantly. 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68029 

19U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 

20Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice 

Research. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 

21Mennis J. Using Geographic Information 

Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces 

of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

Analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281– 

297. 

22Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March, 2007. 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. These proposed 

rules impose requirements on owners 

and operators of specified major and 

area sources, and not on state or local 

governments. There are no wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities or 

mineral wool production facilities 

owned or operated by state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). These proposed rules impose 

requirements on owners and operators 

of specified area and major sources, and 

not tribal governments. There are no 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

or mineral wool production facilities 

owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. The 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104–113 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the agency 

conducted searches for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 

NESHAP through the Enhanced 

National Standards Systems Network 

(NSSN) Database managed by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). We also contacted voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. 

Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN, 

searches were conducted for EPA 

Methods 5 and 29. The search did not 

identify any other VCS that were 

potentially applicable for this rule in 

lieu of EPA reference methods. 

We proposed VCS under the NTTAA 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

(NNN) and for Mineral Wool Production 

(DDD) in November 2011. Commenters 

asked to have the option to use other 

EPA methods to measure their 

emissions for compliance purposes. 

These are not VCS and as such are not 

subject to this requirement. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking, and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS, and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations, 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

An analysis of demographic data 

shows that the average percentage of 

minorities, percentages of the 

population below the poverty level and 

the percentages of the population 17 

years old and younger, in close 

proximity to the sources, are similar to 

the national averages, with percentage 

differences of 3, 1.8 and 1.7, 

respectively, at the 3-mile radius of 

concern. These differences in the 

absolute number of percentage points 

from the national average indicate a 9.4- 

percent, 14.4-percent and 6.6-percent 

over-representation of minority 

populations, populations below the 

poverty level and the percentages of the 

population 17 years old and younger, 

respectively. 

In determining the aggregate 

demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, the 

EPA used census data at the block group 

level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near 

affected sources, such that they have 

notable exposures to current emissions 

from these sources. In this approach, the 

EPA reviewed the distributions of 

different socio-demographic groups in 

the locations of the expected emission 

reductions from this proposed rule. The 

review identified those census block 

groups with centroids within a circular 

distance of a 0.5, 5, and 5 miles of 

affected sources, and determined the 

demographic and socio-economic 

composition (e.g., race, income, 

education, etc.) of these census block 

groups. The radius of 3 miles (or 

approximately 5 kilometers) has been 

used in other demographic analyses 

focused on areas around potential 

sources.19 20 21 22 There was only one 

census block group with its centroids 

within 0.5 miles of any source affected 

by the proposed rule. The EPA’s 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68030 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23The results of the demographic analysis are 

presented in Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride, September 2010, a 

copy of which is available in the docket. 

demographic analysis has shown that 

these areas, in aggregate, have similar 

proportions of American Indians, 

African-Americans, Hispanics and 

‘‘Other and Multi-racial’’ populations to 

the national average. The analysis also 

showed that these areas, in aggregate, 

had similar proportions of families with 

incomes below the poverty level as the 

national average, and similar 

populations of children 17 years of age 

and younger.23

The EPA defines Environmental 

Justice to include 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. To promote meaningful 

involvement, the EPA has developed a 

communication and outreach strategy to 

ensure that interested communities have 

access to this proposed rule, are aware 

of its content, and have an opportunity 

to comment during the comment period. 

During the comment period, the EPA 

will publicize the rulemaking via 

environmental justice newsletters, 

Tribal newsletters, environmental 

justice listservs and the Internet, 

including the EPA Office of Policy 

Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http://

yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). 

The EPA will also conduct targeted 

outreach to environmental justice 

communities, as appropriate. Outreach 

activities may include providing general 

rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this 

important for my community) for 

environmental justice community 

groups, and conducting conference calls 

with interested communities. In 

addition, state and Federal permitting 

requirements will provide state and 

local governments, and members of 

affected communities the opportunity to 

provide comments on the permit 

conditions associated with permitting 

the sources by this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Wool 

fiberglass manufacturing. 

Dated: October 15, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (l)(8) and (9) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(8) SW–846–8260B, Volatile Organic 

Compounds by Gas Chromatography/

Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 

2, December 1996, in EPA Publication 

No. SW–846, Test Methods for 

Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/

Chemical Methods, Third Edition, 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/

testmethods/sw846/, IBR approved for 

§§ 63.1385, 63.11960, 63.11980, and 

table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH. 

(9) SW–846–8270D, Semivolatile 

Organic Compounds by Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry 

(GC/MS), Revision 4, February 2007, in 

EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods, Third 

Edition, http://www.epa.gov/osw/

hazard/testmethods/sw846/, IBR 

approved for §§ 63.1385, 63.11960, 

63.11980, and table 10 to subpart 

HHHHHHH. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Subpart NN of part 63, consisting of 

§§ 63.880 through 63.899, is added to 

read as follows: 

Subpart NN—National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources 

Sec. 

63.880 Applicability. 

63.881 Definitions. 

63.882 Emission standards. 

63.883 Monitoring requirements. 

63.884 Performance test requirements. 

63.885 Test methods and procedures. 

63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

63.887 Compliance dates. 

63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 

63.889–63.899 [Reserved] 

Table 1 to Subpart NN of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions (40 

CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN 

§ 63.880 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of this section, the 

requirements of this subpart apply to 

the owner or operator of each wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility that is 

an area source or is located at a facility 

that is an area source. 

(b) The requirements of this subpart 

apply to emissions of particulate matter 

(PM) and chromium compounds, as 

measured according to the methods and 

procedures in this subpart, emitted from 

each new and existing gas-fired glassmelting furnace located at a wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility that is 

an area source. 

(c) The provisions of subpart A of this 

part that apply and those that do not 

apply to this subpart are specified in 

Table 1 of this subpart. 

(d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

that are not subject to subpart NNN of 

this part are subject to this subpart. 

(e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

using electricity as a supplemental 

energy source are subject to this subpart 

§ 63.881 Definitions. 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, 

or in this section as follows: 

Bag leak detection system means 

systems that include, but are not limited 

to, devices using triboelectric, light 

scattering, and other effects to monitor 

relative or absolute particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. 

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means 

a unit comprising a refractory vessel in 

which raw materials are charged, melted 

at high temperature using natural gas 

and other fuels, refined, and 

conditioned to produce molten glass. 

The unit includes foundations, 

superstructure and retaining walls, raw 

material charger systems, heat 

exchangers, exhaust system, refractory 

brick work, fuel supply and electrical 

boosting equipment, integral control 

systems and instrumentation, and 

appendages for conditioning and 

distributing molten glass to forming 

processes. The forming apparatus, 

including flow channels, is not 

considered part of the gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric glassmelting furnaces as defined in subpart 

NNN of this part are not gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. 

Glass pull rate means the mass of 

molten glass that is produced by a single 

glass-melting furnace or that is used in 

the manufacture of wool fiberglass at a 

single manufacturing line in a specified 

time period. 

Manufacturing line means the 

manufacturing equipment for the 

production of wool fiberglass that 

consists of a forming section where 

molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass 

mat is formed and which may include 

a curing section where binder resin in 

the mat is thermally set and a cooling 

section where the mat is cooled. 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68031 

Wool fiberglass means insulation 

materials composed of glass fibers made 

from glass produced or melted at the 

same facility where the manufacturing 

line is located. 

Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility 

means any facility manufacturing wool 

fiberglass. 

§ 63.882 Emission standards. 

(a) Emission limits. (1) Gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. On and after the date 

the initial performance test is completed 

or required to be completed under 

§ 63.7, whichever date is earlier: 

(i) For each existing, new, or 

reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace you must not discharge or cause 

to be discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of 0.00006 lb of chromium (Cr) 

compounds per ton of glass pulled (60 

lb per million tons glass pulled). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) Glass-melting furnaces. On and 

after the date the initial performance 

test is completed or required to be 

completed under § 63.7, whichever date 

is earlier. 

(b) Operating limits. On and after the 

date on which the performance test 

required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 and 

63.1384 is completed, you must operate 

all affected control equipment and 

processes according to the following 

requirements. 

(1)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour of an alarm from 

a bag leak detection system and 

complete corrective actions in a timely 

manner according to the procedures in 

the operations, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a Quality 

Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent with 

the compliance assurance monitoring 

provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D 

when the bag leak detection system 

alarm is sounded for more than five 

percent of the total operating time in a 

6-month block reporting period. 

(2)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when any 3-hour 

block average of the monitored 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) 

parameter is outside the limit(s) 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.884 and complete 

corrective actions in a timely manner 

according to the procedures in the 

operations, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64 subpart D when the 

monitored ESP parameter is outside the 

limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than five percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate the ESP such 

that the monitored ESP parameter is not 

outside the limit(s) established during 

the performance test as specified in 

§ 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the 

total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(3)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when any 3-hour 

block average value for the monitored 

parameter(s) for a gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace, which uses no add-on controls, 

is outside the limit(s) established during 

the performance test as specified in 

§ 63.884 and complete corrective actions 

in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart D when the 

monitored parameter(s) is outside the 

limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than five percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate a gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace, which uses no 

add-on technology, such that the 

monitored parameter(s) is not outside 

the limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than 10 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(4)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when the 

average glass pull rate of any 4-hour 

block period for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces equipped with continuous 

glass pull rate monitors, or daily glass 

pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not 

so equipped, exceeds the average glass 

pull rate established during the 

performance test as specified in 

§ 63.884, by greater than 20 percent and 

complete corrective actions in a timely 

manner according to the procedures in 

the operations, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart D when the glass 

pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 

percent, the average glass pull rate 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.884 for more than 

five percent of the total operating time 

in a 6-month block reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate each gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace such that the glass 

pull rate does not exceed, by more than 

20 percent, the average glass pull rate 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 

percent of the total operating time in a 

6-month block reporting period. 

(5)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when the 

average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or 

pressure drop (for a venturi scrubber) 

for any 3-hour block period is outside 

the limits established during the 

performance tests as specified in 

§ 63.884 for each wet scrubbing control 

device and complete corrective actions 

in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart D when any 

scrubber parameter is outside the 

limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than five percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate each scrubber 

such that each monitored parameter is 

not outside the limit(s) established 

during the performance test as specified 

in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of 

the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period. 

§ 63.883 Monitoring requirements. 

You must meet all applicable 

monitoring requirements contained in 

subpart NNN of this part. 

§ 63.884 Performance test requirements. 

(a) If you are subject to the provisions 

of this subpart you must conduct a 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits in § 63.882. Compliance 

is demonstrated when the emission rate 

of the pollutant is equal to or less than 

each of the applicable emission limits in 

§ 63.882. You must conduct the 

performance test according to the 

procedures in subpart A of this part and 

in this section. 

(b) You must meet all applicable 

performance test requirements 

contained in subpart NNN of this part. 

§ 63.885 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) You must use the following 

methods to determine compliance with 

the applicable emission limits: 

(1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1) for the selection of the 

sampling port location and number of 

sampling ports; 

(2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1) for volumetric flow rate; 

(3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–2) for O2 and CO2 for 

diluent measurements needed to correct 

the concentration measurements to a 

standard basis; 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68032 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4) for moisture content of 

the stack gas; 

(5) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8) for the concentration of 

chromium compounds. Each run must 

consist of a minimum run time of two 

hours and a minimum sample volume of 

two dscm. 

(6) An alternative method, subject to 

approval by the Administrator. 

(b) Each performance test shall consist 

of three runs. You must use the average 

of the three runs in the applicable 

equation for determining compliance. 

§ 63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

You must meet all applicable 

notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements contained in 

subpart NNN of this part. 

§ 63.887 Compliance dates. 

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this 

subpart shall demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

no later than: 

(1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, the compliance date for 

an owner or operator of an existing 

plant or source subject to the provisions 

in this subpart would be [2 YEARS 

AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

(2) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, the compliance date for 

new and reconstructed plants or sources 

is upon startup of a new gas-fired glassmelting furnace or on [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(3) The compliance date for the 

provisions related to the electronic 

reporting provisions of § 63.886 is on 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(b) Compliance extension. The owner 

or operator of an existing source subject 

to this subpart may request from the 

Administrator an extension of the 

compliance date for the emission 

standards for one additional year if such 

additional period is necessary for the 

installation of controls. You must 

submit a request for an extension 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.6(i)(3). 

§ 63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(b) You must not shut down items of 

equipment that are required or utilized 

for compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being routed to such items 

of equipment, if the shutdown would 

contravene requirements of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment. 

This paragraph (b) does not apply if you 

must shut down the equipment to avoid 

damage due to a contemporaneous 

startup or shutdown, of the affected 

source or a portion thereof. 

(c) Startup begins when the wool 

fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

has any raw materials added. Startup 

ends when molten glass begins to flow 

from the glass-melting furnace. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat 

sources to the glass-melting furnace are 

reduced to begin the glass-melting 

furnace shut down process. Shutdown 

ends when the glass-melting furnace is 

empty or the contents are sufficiently 

viscous to preclude glass flow from the 

glass-melting furnace. 

(e) For a new or existing affected 

source, to demonstrate compliance with 

the gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

emission limits in § 63.882 during 

periods of startups and shutdowns, 

demonstrate compliance in accordance 

with paragraph (f) of this section. 

(f) During periods of startups you may 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in § 63.882 by keeping 

records showing that you used only 

natural gas or other clean fuels to heat 

your furnace. During both periods of 

startups and shutdowns you may 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in § 63.882 by keeping 

records showing that furnace emissions 

were controlled using air pollution 

control devices operated at the 

parameters established by the most 

recent performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard. 

§§ 63.889–63.899 [Reserved] 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NN 

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN? Explanation 

§ 63.1 ............................................. Applicability ................................... Yes 

§ 63.2 ............................................. Definitions ..................................... Yes ................................................ Additional definitions in § 63.881. 

§ 63.3 ............................................. Units and Abbreviations ............... Yes 

§ 63.4 ............................................. Prohibited Activities ...................... Yes 

§ 63.5 ............................................. Construction/Reconstruction Applicability.Yes 

§ 63.5(a)–(c) ................................... Existing, New, Reconstructed ...... Yes 

§ 63.5(d) ......................................... Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................. ....................................................... No ................................................. See § 63.882 for general duty requirements. 

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

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

§ 63.6(e)(2) ..................................... ....................................................... No 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan.No 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... Compliance with Emission Standards.No 

§ 63.6(g) ......................................... Alternative Standard ..................... Yes 

§ 63.6(h) ......................................... Compliance with Opacity/VE 

Standards.

No ................................................. Subpart DDD-no COMS, VE or 

opacity standards. 

§ 63.6(i) .......................................... Extension of Compliance .............. Yes 

§ 63.6(j) .......................................... Exemption from Compliance ........ Yes 

§ 63.7(a)–(d) ................................... Performance Test Requirements 

Applicability Notification Quality 

Assurance/Test Plan Testing 

Facilities.

Yes ................................................ § 63.884 has specific requirements. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Conduct of Tests .......................... No 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .............................. ....................................................... Yes 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68033 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NN—Continued 

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN? Explanation 

§ 63.7(f)–(h) .................................... Alternative Test Method ...............

Data Analysis ................................

Waiver of Tests ............................

Yes 

§ 63.8(a)–(b) ................................... Monitoring Requirements Applicability Conduct of Monitoring.Yes 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. CMS Operation/Maintenance ....... No ................................................. See § 63.882(b) for general duty 

requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. ....................................................... Yes 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ ....................................................... No 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) .......................... ....................................................... Yes 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ..................................... Quality Control .............................. Yes, except for the last sentence.

§ 63.8(e)–(g) ................................... CMS Performance Evaluation ...... Yes 

§ 63.9(a) ......................................... Notification Requirements Applicability.Yes 

§ 63.9(b) ......................................... Initial Notifications ......................... Yes 

§ 63.9(c) ......................................... Request for Compliance Extension.Yes 

§ 63.9(d) ......................................... New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements.Yes 

§ 63.9(e) ......................................... Notification of Performance Test .. Yes 

§ 63.9(f) .......................................... Notification of VE/Opacity Test .... No ................................................. Opacity/VE tests not required. 

§ 63.9(g) ......................................... Additional CMS Notifications ........ Yes 

§ 63.9(h)(1)–(3) .............................. Notification of Compliance Status Yes 

§ 63.9(h)(4) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.9(i) .......................................... Adjustment of Deadlines .............. Yes 

§ 63.9(j) .......................................... Change in Previous Information ... Yes 

§ 63.10(a) ....................................... Recordkeeping/Reporting-Applicability.Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ................................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes 

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................... ....................................................... No ................................................. See § 63.886 for recordkeeping of 

occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of 

actions taken during malfunction. 

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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....................... ....................................................... No 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xiv) ..................... ....................................................... Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................................... ....................................................... Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(9) ............................ Additional CMS Recordkeeping ... Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ........................ ....................................................... No ................................................. See § 63.886 for recordkeeping of 

malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ........................ ....................................................... Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(15) ................................. ....................................................... No 

§ 63.10(d)(1)–(4) ............................ General Reporting Requirements 

Performance Test Results 

Opacity or VE Observations.

Yes 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... Progress Reports/Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports.No ................................................. See § 63.886(c)(2) for reporting of 

malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(e)–(f) .................................. Additional CMS Reports Excess 

Emission/CMS Performance 

Reports COMS Data Reports 

Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver.

Yes 

§ 63.11 ........................................... Control Device Requirements Applicability Flares.No ................................................. Flares will not be used to comply 

with the emissions limits. 

§ 63.12 ........................................... State Authority and Delegations ... Yes 

§ 63.13 ........................................... Addresses ..................................... Yes 

§ 63.14 ........................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Yes 

§ 63.15 ........................................... Information Availability/Confidentiality.Yes 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68034 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart DDD—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Mineral Wool Production 

■ 4. Section 63.1178 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 

paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards 

must I meet? 

(a) * * * 

(2) Limit emissions of carbonyl 

sulfide (COS) from each existing, new, 

or reconstructed closed-top cupola to 

the following: 

(i) 3.4 lb of COS per ton melt or less 

for existing closed-top cupolas. 

(ii) 0.062 lb of COS per ton melt or 

less for new or reconstructed closed-top 

cupolas. 

(3) Limit emissions of COS from each 

existing, new, or reconstructed open-top 

cupola to the following: 

(i) 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt or less 

for existing open-top cupolas. 

(ii) 3.2 lb of COS per ton melt or less 

for new or reconstructed open-top 

cupolas. 

(4) Limit emissions of hydrogen 

fluoride (HF) from each existing, new, 

or reconstructed cupola to the 

following: 

(i) 0.16 lb of HF per ton of melt or less 

for existing cupolas using slag as a raw 

material. 

(ii) 0.015 lb of HF per ton of melt or 

less for new or reconstructed cupolas 

using slag as a raw material. 

(iii) 0.13 lb of HF per ton of melt or 

less for existing cupolas that do not use 

slag as a raw material. 

(iv) 0.018 lb of HF per ton of melt or 

less for new or reconstructed cupolas 

that do not use slag as a raw material. 

(5) Limit emissions of hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) from each existing, new, 

or reconstructed cupola to the 

following: 

(i) 0.44 lb of HCl per ton of melt or 

less for existing cupolas using slag as a 

raw material. 

(ii) 0.012 lb of HCl per ton of melt or 

less for new or reconstructed cupolas 

using slag as a raw material. 

(iii) 0.43 lb of HCl per ton of melt or 

less for existing cupolas that do not use 

slag as a raw material. 

(iv) 0.015 lb of HCl per ton of melt or 

less for new or reconstructed cupolas 

that do not use slag as a raw material. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1179 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1179 For combined collection/curing 

operations, what standards must I meet? 

(a) You must control emissions from 

each existing and new combined 

collection/curing operations by limiting 

emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol to the following: 

(1) For combined drum collection/

curing operations: 

(i) 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

melt or less, 

(ii) 0.85 lb of phenol per ton melt or 

less, and 

(iii) 0.28 lb of methanol per ton melt 

or less. 

(2) For combined horizontal 

collection/curing operations: 

(i) 0.63 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

melt or less, 

(ii) 0.12 lb of phenol per ton melt or 

less, and 

(iii) 0.049 lb of methanol per ton melt 

or less. 

(3) For combined vertical collection/ 

curing operations: 

(i) 2.4 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt 

or less, 

(ii) 0.71 lb of phenol per ton melt or 

less, and 

(iii) 0.92 lb of methanol per ton melt 

or less. 

(b) You must meet the following 

operating limits for each combined 

collection/curing operations 

subcategory: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.1180 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1180 When must I meet these 

standards? 

* * * * * 

(d) 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. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

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. 

■ 7. Section 63.1196 is amended by 

adding definitions in alphabetical order 

for ‘‘Closed-top cupola,’’ ‘‘Combined 

collection/curing operations,’’ and 

‘‘Open-top cupola’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.1196 What definitions should I be 

aware of? 

* * * * * 

Closed-top cupola means a cupola 

that operates as a closed (process) 

system and has a restricted air flow rate. 

* * * * * 

Combined collection/curing 

operations means the combination of 

fiber collection operations and curing 

ovens used to make bonded products. 

* * * * * 

Open-top cupola means a cupola that 

is open to the outside air and operates 

with an air flow rate that is unrestricted 

and at low pressure. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.1197 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1197 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(b) You must not shut down items of 

equipment that are utilized for 

compliance with this subpart. 

(c) Startup begins when fuels are 

ignited in the cupola. Startup ends 

when the cupola produces molten 

material. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the cupola 

has reached the end of the melting 

campaign and is empty. No mineral 

wool glass continues to flow from the 

cupola during shutdown. 

(e) During periods of startups and 

shutdowns you may demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits in 

§ 63.1178 according to one of the 

following methods: 

(1) You may keep records showing 

that you used only clean fuels during 

startup and shutdown; or 

(2) You may keep records showing 

that your emissions were controlled 

using air pollution control devices 

operated at the parameters established 

by the most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the standard; 

or 

(3) You may keep records showing the 

oxygen level in the cupola exceeds 24 

percent. 

■ 9. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68035 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART DDD 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(6) .............................. Applicability ................................... Yes 

§ 63.1(a)(7)(9) ................................ .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(12) .......................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.1(b)(1) ..................................... Initial Applicability Determination .. Yes 

§ 63.1(b)(2) ..................................... .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.1(b)(3) ..................................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.1(c)(1)–(2) .............................. .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.1(c)(3)–(4) .............................. .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.1(c)(5)–(e) .............................. .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.2 ............................................. Definitions ..................................... Yes 

§ 63.3 ............................................. Units and Abbreviations ............... Yes 

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(2) .............................. Prohibited Activities ...................... Yes 

§ 63.4(a)(3)–(5) .............................. .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.4(b)–(c) ................................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.5(a)(1)–(b)(2) .......................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability.Yes 

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(4) .............................. .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.5(b)(5) ..................................... .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.5(b)(6) ..................................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.5(c) ......................................... .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.5(d)–(j) .................................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.6(a)–(d) ................................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................. General Duty to minimize emissions.No ................................................. See § 63.1180(d) for general duty 

requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. Requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as possible.No ................................................. § 63.1187(b) specifies additional 

requirements. 

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

§ 63.6(e)(2) ..................................... .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... Startup, Shutdown Malfunction 

(SSM) Plan.

No ................................................. Startups and shutdowns addressed in § 63.1197. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... SSM exemption ............................ No 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(g) ............................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.6(h)(1) ..................................... SSM exemption ............................ No 

§ 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............................... .................................................. Yes 

6§ 3.7(a)–(d) ................................... Performance testing requirements Yes 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Conduct of performance tests ...... No ................................................. See § 63.1180. 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(f) ............................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.7(g)(1) ..................................... Data analysis, recordkeeping and 

reporting.

Yes 

§ 63.7(g)(2) ..................................... .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.7(g)(3)–(h) .............................. .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.8(a)–(b) ................................... Monitoring requirements ............... Yes 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. General duty to minimize emissions and CMS operation.No ................................................. See § 63.1180(e) for general duty 

requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ Requirement to develop SSM 

Plan for CMS.

No 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) .......................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ..................................... Written procedures for CMS ......... Yes, except for last sentence, 

which refers to SSM plan. SSM 

plans are not required. 

§ 63.8(e)–(g) ................................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2) .............................. Initial Notifications ......................... Yes 

§ 63.9(b)(3) ..................................... .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

§ 63.9(b)(4)–(5) .............................. .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.9(c)–(j) .................................... .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.10(a) ....................................... Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ................................... General recordkeeping requirements.Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................... Recordkeeping of occurrence and 

duration of startups and shutdowns.

No 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................... Recordkeeping of malfunctions .... No ................................................. See § 63.1193(c) for recordkeeping of (ii) occurrence and 

duration and (iii) actions taken 

during malfunction. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. Maintenance records .................... Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....................... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM.No 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68036 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART DDD—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions.Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .................... Other CMS requirements ............. Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................................... Recordkeeping requirement for 

applicability determinations.

Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) ............................ Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with CMS.Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............................ Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS—identifying 

exceedances and excess emissions.

Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................................... .................................................. No ................................................. [Reserved] 

63.10(c)(10)–(11) ........................... .................................................. No ................................................. See § 63.1192 for recordkeeping 

of malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ........................ .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(15) ................................. Use of SSM Plan .......................... No 

§ 63.10(d)(1)–(4) ............................ General reporting requirements ... Yes 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... SSM reports .................................. No ................................................. See § 63.1193(f) for reporting of 

malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(e)–(f) .................................. Additional CMS Reports ...............

Excess Emission/CMS Performance Reports.

COMS Data Reports ....................

Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver

Yes 

§ 63.11(a)–(b) ................................. Control Device Requirements Applicability Flares.No ................................................. Flares will not be used to comply 

with the emissions limits. 

§ 63.11(c) ....................................... Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks.Yes 

§ 63.11(d) ....................................... Alternative Work Practice Standard.Yes 

§ 63.12 ........................................... State Authority and Delegations ... No ................................................. Flares will not be used to comply 

with the emissions limits. 

§ 63.13 ........................................... Addresses ..................................... Yes 

§ 63.14 ........................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Yes 

§ 63.15 ........................................... Information Availability/Confidentiality.Yes 

Subpart NNN—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

■ 10. Section 63.1380 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1380 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Each new and existing flame 

attenuation wool fiberglass 

manufacturing line producing a bonded 

product. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.1381 is amended by 

adding a definition in alphabetical order 

for ‘‘Gas-fired glass-melting furnace’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.1381 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means 

a unit comprising a refractory vessel in 

which raw materials are charged, melted 

at high temperature using natural gas 

and other fuels, refined, and 

conditioned to produce molten glass. 

The unit includes foundations, 

superstructure and retaining walls, raw 

material charger systems, heat 

exchangers, exhaust system, refractory 

brick work, fuel supply and electrical 

boosting equipment, integral control 

systems and instrumentation, and 

appendages for conditioning and 

distributing molten glass to forming 

processes. The forming apparatus, 

including flow channels, is not 

considered part of the gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric glassmelting furnaces as defined in this 

subpart are not gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.1382 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.1382 Emission standards. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Glass-melting furnaces. On and 

after the date the initial performance 

test is completed or required to be 

completed under § 63.7, whichever date 

is earlier: 

(i) For each existing, new, or 

reconstructed glass-melting furnace you 

must not discharge or cause to be 

discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate 

matter (PM) per ton glass pulled; 

(ii) For each existing, new, or 

reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace you must not discharge or cause 

to be discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of 6.0E–5 lb of chromium (Cr) 

compounds per ton glass pulled (0.06 lb 

per thousand tons glass pulled). 

(iii) For each existing, new, or 

reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace you must either: 

(A) Require cullet providers to 

provide records of their inspections 

showing that the cullet is free of 

chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing 

constituents; or 

(B) Sample your raw materials and 

maintain records of your sampling 

showing that the cullet is free of 

chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing 

constituents. 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68037 

(2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. 

On and after the date the initial 

performance test is completed or 

required to be completed under § 63.7, 

whichever date is earlier, the owner or 

operator shall not discharge or cause to 

be discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of: 

(i) For each existing rotary spin (RS) 

manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 0.19 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 0.26 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.83 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

(ii) For each new or reconstructed RS 

manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 0.066 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 0.060 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.29 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

(3) Flame attenuation manufacturing 

lines. On and after the date the initial 

performance test is completed or 

required to be completed under § 63.7, 

whichever date is earlier, the owner or 

operator shall not discharge or cause to 

be discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of: 

(i) For each existing flame attenuation 

(FA) manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 5.6 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 1.4 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

(ii) For each new or reconstructed FA 

manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 2.6 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 0.44 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.35 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.1384 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1384 Performance test requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to be conducted 

within 90 days of the promulgation date 

of this rule to demonstrate compliance 

with the chromium compounds 

emissions limit specified in 

§ 63.1382(a)(i), you must conduct an 

annual performance test for chromium 

compounds emissions from each glassmelting furnace (no later than 12 

calendar months following the previous 

compliance test). 

(e) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol emissions limits 

specified in § 63.1382, you must 

conduct a performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with each of 

the applicable PM, formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol emissions limits 

in § 63.1382 at least once every five 

years. 

■ 14. Section 63.1385 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6); 

■ b. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (a)(10) and adding a 

semicolon in its place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (a)(11) through 

(15) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1385 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3) for the concentration of 

total PM. Each run must consist of a 

minimum run time of two hours and a 

minimum sample volume of two dry 

standard cubic meters (dscm). The 

probe and filter holder heating system 

may be set to provide a gas temperature 

no greater than 120±14°C (248±25°F); 

(6) Method 318 (appendix A of this 

part) for the concentration of 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. 

Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of 10 spectra; 

* * * * * 

(11) Method 316 (appendix A of this 

part) for the concentration of 

formaldehyde. Each test run must 

consist of a minimum of two hours and 

two dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of 

sample volume; 

(12) Method SW–846 8260B 

(§ 63.14(l)(8)) for the concentration of 

phenol. Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of three hours; 

(13) Method SW–846 8270D 

(§ 63.14(l)(9)) for the concentration of 

phenol. Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of three hours; 

(14) Method 308 (appendix A of this 

part) for the concentration of methanol. 

Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of two hours; 

(15) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8) for the concentration of 

chromium compounds. Each test run 

must consist of a minimum of three 

hours and three dscm of sample volume. 

■ 15. Section 63.1386 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (d)(2)(x) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Records and reports for a failure to 

meet a standard. (1) In the event that an 

affected unit fails to meet a standard, 

record the number of failures since the 

prior notification of compliance status. 

For each failure record the date, time 

and duration of each failure. 

(2) For each failure to meet a standard 

record and retain a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the standard for which the 

source failed to meet the standard, and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

(3) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 63.1382, 

including corrective actions to restore 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

(4) If an affected unit fails to meet a 

standard, report such events in the 

notification of compliance status 

required by § 63.1386(a)(7). Report the 

number of failures to meet a standard 

since the prior notification. For each 

instance, report the date, time and 

duration of each failure. For each failure 

the report must include a list of the 

affected units or equipment, an estimate 

of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the standard, and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(x) You must maintain records of your 

cullet sampling or records of 

inspections from cullet providers. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.1387 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1387 Compliance dates. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The compliance dates for existing 

plants and sources are: 

(i) [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register] for gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 63.1388 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1388 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(b) You must not shut down items of 

equipment that are required or utilized 

for compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being, or are otherwise 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
68038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

required to be, routed to such items of 

equipment. 

(c) Startup begins when the wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnace has any 

raw materials added and reaches 50 

percent of its typical operating 

temperature. Startup ends when molten 

glass begins to flow from the wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnace. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat 

sources to the glass-melting furnace are 

reduced to begin the glass-melting 

furnace shut down process. Shutdown 

ends when the glass-melting furnace is 

empty or the contents are sufficiently 

viscous to preclude glass flow from the 

glass-melting furnace. 

(e) During periods of startups you may 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in § 63.1382: 

(1) by keeping records showing that 

you used only natural gas or other clean 

fuels to heat your furnace; or 

(2) by keeping records showing that 

you used only cullet as a raw material 

in your cold-top furnace. 

(f) During both periods of startups and 

shutdowns you may demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits in 

§ 63.1382 by keeping records showing 

that furnace emissions were controlled 

using air pollution control devices 

operated at the parameters established 

by the most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the standard. 

■ 18. Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NNN 

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(5) .............................. Applicability ................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.1(a)(6) ..................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9) .............................. ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(12) .......................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.1(b)(1) ..................................... Initial Applicability Determination .. Yes ................................................

§ 63.1(b)(2) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(b)(3) ..................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.1(c)(1)–(2) .............................. ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.1(c)(3)–(4) .............................. ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(c)(5)–(e) .............................. ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.2 ............................................. Definitions ..................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.3 ............................................. Units and Abbreviations ............... Yes ................................................

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(2) .............................. Prohibited Activities ...................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.4(a)(3)–(5) .............................. ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.4(b)–(c) ................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.5(a)–(b)(2) .............................. Construction/Reconstruction Applicability.Yes ................................................

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(4) .............................. ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.5(b)(5) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(b)(6) ..................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.6(a)–(d) ................................... Compliance with Standards and 

Maintenance Requirements.

Yes ................................................

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................. General Duty to minimize emissions.No ................................................. See § 63.1382(b) for general duty 

requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. Requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as possible.No ................................................. § 63.1382(b) specifies additional 

requirements. 

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

§ 63.6(e)(2) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... Startup, Shutdown Malfunction 

Plan.

No ................................................. Startups and shutdowns addressed in § 63.1388. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... SSM exemption ............................ No .................................................

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............................... Methods for Determining Compliance.Yes ................................................

§ 63.6(g) ......................................... Use of an Alternative Nonopacity 

Emission Standard.

Yes ................................................

§ 63.6(h)(1) ..................................... SSM exemption ............................ No .................................................

§ 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.7(a)–(d) ................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Performance testing ..................... No ................................................. See § 63.1382(b). 

§ 63.7(f) .......................................... Alternate test method ................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.7(g)(1) ..................................... Data Analysis ................................ Yes ................................................

§ 63.7(g)(2) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.7(g)(3) ..................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.7(h) ......................................... Waiver of performance tests ........ Yes ................................................

§ 63.8(a)–(b) ................................... Monitoring requirements ............... Yes ................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. General duty to minimize emissions and CMS operation.No ................................................. See § 63.1382(c) for general duty 

requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ Requirement to develop SSM 

Plan for CMS.

No .................................................

§ 63.8(d)(1)–(2) .............................. Quality control program ................ Yes ................................................

§ 63.8(d)(3) ..................................... Written procedures for CMS ......... Yes, except for last sentence, 

which refers to SSM plan. SSM 

plans are not required..

§ 63.8(e)–(g) ................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.9(a) ......................................... Notification requirements .............. Yes ................................................


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68039 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NNN—Continued 

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2) .............................. Initial Notifications ......................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.9(b)(3) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.9(b)(4)–(j) ............................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(a) ....................................... Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(b)(1) ................................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................... Recordkeeping of occurrence and 

duration of startups and shutdowns.

No .................................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................... Recordkeeping of malfunctions .... No ................................................. See § 63.1386(c)(1) through (3) 

for recordkeeping of occurrence 

and duration and actions taken 

during a failure to meet a standard. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. Maintenance records .................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ....................... Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM.No .................................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .............................. Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions.Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .................... Other CMS requirements ............. Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................................... Recordkeeping requirement for 

applicability determinations.

Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) ............................ Additional recordkeeping requirements for sources with CMS.Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ............................ Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS—identifying 

exceedances and excess emissions.

Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ........................ ....................................................... No ................................................. See § 63.1386 for recordkeeping 

of malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ........................ ....................................................... Yes ................................................

63.10(c)(15) ................................... Use of SSM Plan .......................... No .................................................

§ 63.10(d)(1)–(4) ............................ General reporting requirements ... Yes ................................................

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... SSM reports .................................. No ................................................. See § 63.1386(c)(iii) for reporting 

of malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(e)–(f) .................................. Additional CMS Reports Excess 

Emission/CMS Performance 

Reports COMS Data Reports 

Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver.

Yes ................................................

§ 63.11(a)–(b) ................................. Control Device Requirements Applicability Flares.No ................................................. Flares will not be used to comply 

with the emissions limits. 

§ 63.11(c) ....................................... Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks.Yes ................................................

§ 63.11(d) ....................................... Alternative Work Practice Standard.Yes ................................................

§ 63.12 ........................................... State Authority and Delegations ... Yes ................................................

§ 63.13 ........................................... Addresses ..................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.14 ........................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Yes ................................................

§ 63.15 ........................................... Information Availability/Confidentiality.Yes ................................................

[FR Doc. 2014–25125 Filed 11–12–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


TKELLEY on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2