```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68011-68039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25125]

[[Page 68011]]

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 68012]]

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

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 pre-register 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 68014]]

    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                  327993
                                     Production.
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing.....  Wool Fiberglass               327993
                                     Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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

[[Page 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-by-case enforcement discretion, not 
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions 
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions 
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution 
control device with 99 percent removal goes off-line as a result of a 
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse 
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that 
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99 percent 
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher 
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day 
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source 
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for 
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and 
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a 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.

[[Page 68016]]

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 Sec. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter 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.
    \2\ Letter 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 68017]]

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.3 4 5 6 7 8 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \4\ Wan, 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.
    \6\ Ashkan Zarnani; Petr Musilek; Jana Heckenbergerova. 2014. 
Clustering numerical weather forecasts to obtain statistical 
prediction intervals. Meteorological Applications, ISSN 1350-4827. 
21(3): 605.
    \7\ Rayer, Stefan; Smith, Stanley K; Tayman, Jeff. 2009. 
Empirical Prediction Intervals for County Population Forecasts. 
Population Research and Policy Review, 28(6): 773-793.
    \8\ Nicholas 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 68018]]

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-in-1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Determination of RDL and ``3 x RDL'' Values for Carbonyl 
Sulfide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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-   COS............             3.3  6.8............  No change.
                               top.
                              New Open top...  COS............           0.017  4.3............  3.2.
                              Existing Closed  COS............             3.3  3.4............  No change.
                               Top.
                              New Closed Top.  COS............           0.017  0.025..........  0.062.
                              Existing         HF.............           0.014  0.16...........  No change
                               Processing      HCl............          0.0096  0.21...........  0.44.
                               Slag.

[[Page 68020]]

 
                              New Processing   HF.............           0.014  0.16...........  0.015
                               Slag.           HCl............          0.0096  0.21...........  0.012.
                              Existing Not     HF.............           0.014  0.13...........  No change
                               Processing      HCl............          0.0096  0.43...........  No change.
                               Slag.
                              New Not          HF.............           0.014  0.13...........  0.018
                               Processing      HCl............          0.0096  0.43...........  0.015.
                               Slag.
Bonded Lines................  Vertical         Formaldehyde...            0.46  2.7............  2.4
                               (Existing and   Phenol.........            0.52  0.74...........  0.71
                               New).           Methanol.......            0.63  1.0............  0.92.
                              Horizontal       Formaldehyde...           0.054  No change......  0.63
                               (Existing and   Phenol.........            0.15  No change......  0.12
                               New).           Methanol.......           0.022  No change......  0.049.
                              Drum (Existing   Formaldehyde...           0.067  0.18...........  0.17
                               and New).       Phenol.........          0.0023  1.3............  0.85
                                               Methanol.......         0.00077  0.48...........  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 glass-melting 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 re-
evaluation 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.

[[Page 68021]]

    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 high-emitting 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13NO14.169

    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

[[Page 68022]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2010 Testing    2012 Testing
          Furnace           2010 Emissions   2012 Emission        Comments        emissions (lb/  emissions (lb/
                             rate (lb/ton)   rate (lb/ton)                              yr)             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              35              12
                                                             proposed limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Three 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 chloride-
bearing 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

[[Page 68024]]

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......            0.17  0.19.................  No change.
                                 Phenol............            0.19  0.26.................  No change.
                                 Methanol..........            0.48  0.83.................  No change.
New Rotary Spin Lines..........  Formaldehyde......           0.020  0.087................  0.066.
                                 Phenol............          0.0011  0.063................  0.060.
                                 Methanol..........         0.00067  0.61.................  0.29.
Existing Flame Attenuation       Formaldehyde......             5.6  No change............  No change.
 Lines.                          Phenol............             1.4  No change............  No change.
                                 Methanol..........            0.50  No change............  No change.
New Flame Attenuation Lines....  Formaldehyde......             3.3  No change............  2.6.
                                 Phenol............            0.46  No change............  0.44.
                                 Methanol..........            0.50  No change............  0.35.
Existing and New Furnaces......  PM................            0.14  0.33.................  No change
                                 Chromium Compounds         0.00006  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 glass-melting 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 non-mercury 
HAP metal. Id., at 640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 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.
    \13\ See the Modeling File in the Docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 gas-
fired 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 glass-melting 
furnaces, chromium and PM reductions are achieved due to the co-control 
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

[[Page 68025]]

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 x 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Final Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy) 
was published on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706).
    \15\ The Strategy is discussed at length in the April 15, 2013 
proposed rule for this source category (78 FR 22370 at 22375-378).
    \16\ Source 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 glass-melting 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.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Total HAP           Cost
                                              Estimated         Estimated         emissions     effectiveness in
           Proposed amendment               capital cost       annual cost       reductions      $ per ton total
                                                ($MM)             ($MM)        (tons per year)    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 glass-melting 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

[[Page 68026]]

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 
gas-fired 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Est. total        Total HAP
      Proposed amendment        Est. capital     annualized        emissions           Cost           Number
                                 cost  ($mm)     cost  ($MM)      reductions      effectiveness     facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Fired Glass-Melting
 Furnaces:
    Reduce furnace life cycle       1.144 x 3       0.212 x 3  567 pounds        1,300 ($ per                  2
                                                                chromium          pound).
                                                                compounds per
                                                                year.
    Additional testing and                  0        0.01 x 8  N/A.............  ...............               5
     monitoring for gas-fired
     glass-melting furnaces.
RS and FA Manufacturing
 Lines:
    Operation and Maintenance               0            0.75  123 tons organic  6,300 ($ per                  6
     of thermal oxidizer.                                       HAP per year.     ton).
    Additional testing and                  0            0.02  N/A.............  ...............              10
     monitoring for FA and RS
     lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 glass-
melting 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

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Est. total        Total HAP
      Proposed amendment        Est. capital     annualized        emissions           Cost           Number
                                 cost ($MM)      cost ($MM)       reductions      effectiveness     facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce furnace life cycle....       1.144 x 3       0.212 x 3  54 pounds per     13,300 ($ per                 2
                                                                year.             pound).
Additional testing and                      0        0.01 x 8  N/A.............  ...............               5
 monitoring for glass-melting
 furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 glass-
melting 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Non-labor     Total average
                     Subpart                        Labor hours     Labor cost     capital cost    annual burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDD.............................................             123         $25,850              $0         $25,850
NNN.............................................             153          46,789               0          46,789

[[Page 68028]]

 
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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Federal   Federal
                                                        Gov't     Gov't
                       Subpart                          labor     labor
                                                        hours     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-for-profit 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

[[Page 68029]]

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

[[Page 68030]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics 
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government 
Printing Office; 1995.
    \20\ Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography. 
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \21\ Mennis 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.
    \22\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste 
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
    \23\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (l)(8) and (9) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  63.1385, 
63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH.
* * * * *
0
3. Subpart NN of part 63, consisting of Sec. Sec.  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

Sec.  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 glass-melting 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

Sec.  63.881  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  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 glass-melting furnace. Cold-top 
electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in subpart NNN of this part 
are not gas-fired glass-melting 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.

[[Page 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.

Sec.  63.882  Emission standards.

    (a) Emission limits. (1) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. On and 
after the date the initial performance test is completed or required to 
be completed under Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.7, whichever date is earlier.
    (b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent 
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

Sec.  63.883  Monitoring requirements.

    You must meet all applicable monitoring requirements contained in 
subpart NNN of this part.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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;

[[Page 68032]]

    (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.

Sec.  63.886  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    You must meet all applicable notification, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements contained in subpart NNN of this part.

Sec.  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 glass-melting furnace or on [EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE].
    (3) The compliance date for the provisions related to the 
electronic reporting provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  63.6(i)(3).

Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec. Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1..........................  Applicability..........  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.881.
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.4..........................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.5..........................  Construction/            Yes                      .......................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(a)-(c)...................  Existing, New,           Yes                      .......................
                                        Reconstructed.
Sec.   63.5(d).......................  Application for          No.....................  [Reserved].
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.882 for
                                                                                          general duty
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  .......................  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)....................  .......................  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   No                       .......................
                                        Malfunction Plan.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance with          No                       .......................
                                        Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.6(g).......................  Alternative Standard...  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(h).......................  Compliance with Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart DDD-no COMS, VE
                                        VE Standards.                                     or opacity standards.
Sec.   63.6(i).......................  Extension of Compliance  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Exemption from           Yes                      .......................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Sec.   63.884 has
                                        Requirements                                      specific requirements.
                                        Applicability
                                        Notification Quality
                                        Assurance/Test Plan
                                        Testing Facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of Tests.......  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................

[[Page 68033]]

 
Sec.   63.7(f)-(h)...................  Alternative Test Method  Yes                      .......................
                                       Data Analysis..........
                                       Waiver of Tests........
Sec.   63.8(a)-(b)...................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes                      .......................
                                        Applicability Conduct
                                        of Monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  CMS Operation/           No.....................  See Sec.   63.882(b)
                                        Maintenance.                                      for general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  .......................  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2).............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Quality Control........  Yes, except for the      .......................
                                                                 last sentence.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(g)...................  CMS Performance          Yes                      .......................
                                        Evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(a).......................  Notification             Yes                      .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.9(b).......................  Initial Notifications..  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(c).......................  Request for Compliance   Yes                      .......................
                                        Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).......................  New Source Notification  Yes                      .......................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes                      .......................
                                        Performance Test.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of VE/      No.....................  Opacity/VE tests not
                                        Opacity Test.                                     required.
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional CMS           Yes                      .......................
                                        Notifications.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3)................  Notification of          Yes                      .......................
                                        Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes                      .......................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes                      .......................
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Recordkeeping    Yes                      .......................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  .......................  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.886 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          occurrence and
                                                                                          duration of
                                                                                          malfunctions and
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          actions taken during
                                                                                          malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  .......................  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv).........  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(9)...............  Additional CMS           Yes                      .......................
                                        Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(11).............  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.886 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(c)(12)-(14).............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  .......................  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(4)...............  General Reporting        Yes                      .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Performance Test
                                        Results Opacity or VE
                                        Observations.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Progress Reports/        No.....................  See Sec.   63.886(c)(2)
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and                            for reporting of
                                        Malfunction Reports.                              malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(e)-(f)..................  Additional CMS Reports   Yes                      .......................
                                        Excess Emission/CMS
                                        Performance Reports
                                        COMS Data Reports
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting Waiver.
Sec.   63.11.........................  Control Device           No.....................  Flares will not be used
                                        Requirements                                      to comply with the
                                        Applicability Flares.                             emissions limits.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes                      .......................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses..............  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes                      .......................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Information              Yes                      .......................
                                        Availability/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68034]]

Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production

0
4. Section 63.1178 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 
paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) to read as follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  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:
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1180 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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.
0
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:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.1197 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
0
9. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(6)................  Applicability..........  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)(9).................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(12)..............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)....................  Initial Applicability    Yes                      .......................
                                        Determination.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)....................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)-(2)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)-(4)................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)-(e)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.4(a)(3)-(5)................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.5(a)(1)-(b)(2).............  Construction/            Yes                      .......................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(4)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)....................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.5(c).......................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.5(d)-(j)...................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(a)-(d)...................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180(d)
                                        minimize emissions.                               for general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Requirement to correct   No.....................  Sec.   63.1187(b)
                                        malfunctions as soon                              specifies additional
                                        as possible.                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown        No.....................  Startups and shutdowns
                                        Malfunction (SSM) Plan.                           addressed in Sec.
                                                                                          63.1197.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(g)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)-(j)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
6Sec.   3.7(a)-(d)...................  Performance testing      Yes                      .......................
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of performance   No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180.
                                        tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(f)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.7(g)(1)....................  Data analysis,           Yes                      .......................
                                        recordkeeping and
                                        reporting.
Sec.   63.7(g)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.7(g)(3)-(h)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(a)-(b)...................  Monitoring requirements  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  General duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180(e)
                                        minimize emissions and                            for general duty
                                        CMS operation.                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Requirement to develop   No                       .......................
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2).............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Written procedures for   Yes, except for last     .......................
                                        CMS.                     sentence, which refers
                                                                 to SSM plan. SSM plans
                                                                 are not required.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(g)...................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(2)................  Initial Notifications..  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)-(5)................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(c)-(j)...................  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping and        Yes                      .......................
                                        reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General recordkeeping    Yes                      .......................
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Recordkeeping of         No                       .......................
                                        occurrence and
                                        duration of startups
                                        and shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  See Sec.   63.1193(c)
                                        malfunctions.                                     for recordkeeping of
                                                                                          (ii) occurrence and
                                                                                          duration and (iii)
                                                                                          actions taken during
                                                                                          malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Maintenance records....  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions taken to         No                       .......................
                                        minimize emissions
                                        during SSM.

[[Page 68036]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes                      .......................
                                        malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)........  Other CMS requirements.  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Recordkeeping            Yes                      .......................
                                        requirement for
                                        applicability
                                        determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6)...............  Additional               Yes                      .......................
                                        recordkeeping
                                        requirements for
                                        sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Additional               Yes                      .......................
                                        recordkeeping
                                        requirements for CMS--
                                        identifying
                                        exceedances and excess
                                        emissions.
Sec.   63.10(c)(9)...................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
63.10(c)(10)-(11)....................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1192 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(c)(12)-(14).............  .......................  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  Use of SSM Plan........  No                       .......................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(4)...............  General reporting        Yes                      .......................
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  SSM reports............  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1193(f)
                                                                                          for reporting of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(e)-(f)..................  Additional CMS Reports.  Yes                      .......................
                                       Excess Emission/CMS
                                        Performance Reports.
                                       COMS Data Reports......
                                       Recordkeeping/Reporting
                                        Waiver.
Sec.   63.11(a)-(b)..................  Control Device           No.....................  Flares will not be used
                                        Requirements                                      to comply with the
                                        Applicability Flares.                             emissions limits.
Sec.   63.11(c)......................  Alternative Work         Yes                      .......................
                                        Practice for
                                        Monitoring Equipment
                                        for Leaks.
Sec.   63.11(d)......................  Alternative Work         Yes                      .......................
                                        Practice Standard.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      No.....................  Flares will not be used
                                        Delegations.                                      to comply with the
                                                                                          emissions limits.
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses..............  Yes                      .......................
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes                      .......................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Information              Yes                      .......................
                                        Availability/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

0
10. Section 63.1380 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1380  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass 
manufacturing line producing a bonded product.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding a definition in alphabetical 
order for ``Gas-fired glass-melting furnace'' to read as follows:

Sec.  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 glass-melting furnace. Cold-top 
electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in this subpart are not gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.

[[Page 68037]]

    (2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. On and after the date the 
initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.1384 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1382(a)(i), you must conduct an annual 
performance test for chromium compounds emissions from each glass-
melting 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 Sec.  63.1382, you must conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable 
PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits in Sec.  
63.1382 at least once every five years.
0
14. Section 63.1385 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(10) and adding a 
semicolon in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(11) through (15) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 12014[deg]C (24825[deg]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 (Sec.  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 (Sec.  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.
0
15. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding 
paragraph (d)(2)(x) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.1387 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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]
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.1388 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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

[[Page 68038]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
0
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(5)................  Applicability..........  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(9)................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(12)..............  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)....................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Determination.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)-(2)................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)-(4)................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)-(e)................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(2)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.4(a)(3)-(5)................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)...................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.5(a)-(b)(2)................  Construction/            Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(4)................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.6(a)-(d)...................  Compliance with          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1382(b)
                                        minimize emissions.                               for general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Requirement to correct   No.....................  Sec.   63.1382(b)
                                        malfunctions as soon                              specifies additional
                                        as possible.                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown        No.....................  Startups and shutdowns
                                        Malfunction Plan.                                 addressed in Sec.
                                                                                          63.1388.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  .......................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Methods for Determining  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g).......................  Use of an Alternative    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Nonopacity Emission
                                        Standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  .......................
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)-(j)................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)...................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Performance testing....  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1382(b).
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Alternate test method..  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.7(g)(1)....................  Data Analysis..........  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.7(g)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.7(g)(3)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.7(h).......................  Waiver of performance    Yes....................  .......................
                                        tests.
Sec.   63.8(a)-(b)...................  Monitoring requirements  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  General duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1382(c)
                                        minimize emissions and                            for general duty
                                        CMS operation.                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Requirement to develop   No.....................  .......................
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)................  Quality control program  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Written procedures for   Yes, except for last     .......................
                                        CMS.                     sentence, which refers
                                                                 to SSM plan. SSM plans
                                                                 are not required..
Sec.   63.8(e)-(g)...................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.9(a).......................  Notification             Yes....................  .......................
                                        requirements.

[[Page 68039]]

 
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(2)................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.9(b)(3)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.9(b)(4)-(j)................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping and        Yes....................  .......................
                                        reporting requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  .......................
                                        occurrence and
                                        duration of startups
                                        and shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  See Sec.
                                        malfunctions.                                     63.1386(c)(1) through
                                                                                          (3) for recordkeeping
                                                                                          of occurrence and
                                                                                          duration and actions
                                                                                          taken during a failure
                                                                                          to meet a standard.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Maintenance records....  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions taken to         No.....................  .......................
                                        minimize emissions
                                        during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)...............  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes....................  .......................
                                        malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)........  Other CMS requirements.  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Recordkeeping            Yes....................  .......................
                                        requirement for
                                        applicability
                                        determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6)...............  Additional               Yes....................  .......................
                                        recordkeeping
                                        requirements for
                                        sources with CMS.
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Additional               Yes....................  .......................
                                        recordkeeping
                                        requirements for CMS--
                                        identifying
                                        exceedances and excess
                                        emissions.
Sec.   63.10(c)(9)...................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(11).............  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1386 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(c)(12)-(14).............  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(15).........................  Use of SSM Plan........  No.....................  .......................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(4)...............  General reporting        Yes....................  .......................
                                        requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  SSM reports............  No.....................  See Sec.
                                                                                          63.1386(c)(iii) for
                                                                                          reporting of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(e)-(f)..................  Additional CMS Reports   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Excess Emission/CMS
                                        Performance Reports
                                        COMS Data Reports
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting Waiver.
Sec.   63.11(a)-(b)..................  Control Device           No.....................  Flares will not be used
                                        Requirements                                      to comply with the
                                        Applicability Flares.                             emissions limits.
Sec.   63.11(c)......................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice for
                                        Monitoring Equipment
                                        for Leaks.
Sec.   63.11(d)......................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice Standard.
Sec.   63.12.........................  State Authority and      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses..............  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15.........................  Information              Yes....................  .......................
                                        Availability/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-25125 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```