34278 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6703–5]

RIN 2060–AH89

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is adding wetformed fiberglass mat production to the

list of categories of major sources of

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)

published under section 112(c) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) and to the source

category schedule for national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP).

The EPA is, at the same time,

proposing the NESHAP for new and

existing sources at wet-formed fiberglass

mat production facilities. The HAPs

emitted by the facilities subject to the

proposed NESHAP include three

organic HAPs (formaldehyde, methanol,

and vinyl acetate). Exposure to these

HAPs can cause reversible or

irreversible adverse health effects

including carcinogenic, respiratory,

nervous system, developmental,

reproductive, and/or dermal health

effects. The EPA estimates the proposed

NESHAP would reduce nationwide

emissions of HAPs from the drying and

curing ovens at these facilities by 199

megagrams per year (Mg/yr)(219 tons

per year or tons/yr), an approximate 74

percent reduction from the current level

of emissions. Under section 112(c)(5) of

the CAA, the wet-formed fiberglass mat

production NESHAP has a promulgation

date of May 26, 2002.

The proposed NESHAP are based on

the Administrator’s determination that

wet-formed fiberglass mat production

facilities emit several of the 188 HAPs

listed in the CAA from the various

process operations found within the

industry, and that these facilities can be

major sources of HAPs. The proposed

NESHAP protect the public by requiring

all wet-formed fiberglass mat

production facilities that are major

sources to meet emission standards

reflecting the application of the

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Public comments on

the proposed rule must be received on

or before July 25, 2000.

Public Hearing. A public hearing will

be held if requests to speak are received

by June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested

parties may submit written comments

(in duplicate, if possible) to Docket No.

A–97–54 at the following address: Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. A

separate copy of the comments should

be sent to Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals

and Inorganic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

1084.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the proposed

rule, contact Mr. Juan Santiago,

Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals

Group, Emission Standards Division

(MD–13), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)

541–1084, e-mail address:

santiago.juan@epa.gov. For information

regarding Method 316, contact Ms. Rima

N. Howell; Emissions, Monitoring, and

Analysis Division (MD–19); U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

0443, e-mail address:

howell.rima@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments. Commenters wishing to

submit proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information.’’ Submissions

containing such proprietary information

should be sent directly to the following

address, and not to the public docket, to

ensure that proprietary information is

not inadvertently placed in the docket:

Attention: Mr. Juan Santiago, c/o

OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411

W. Chapel Hill Street, Room 740B,

Durham, North Carolina 27701.

Information covered by such a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

only to the extent allowed and by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies a submission when it is

received by EPA, the submission may be

made available to the public without

further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting to

present oral testimony or attend the

public hearing must contact Ms. Tanya

Medley at (919) 541–5422 no later than

June 16, 2000. A verbatim transcript of

the hearing and any written statements

will be available for public inspection

and copying during normal working

hours at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center in

Washington, DC.

Docket. Docket A–97–54, containing

supporting information used in

developing the proposed standards, is

available at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, 401 M

Street, SW, Room M–1500, Waterside

Mall, Washington D.C. 20460 and may

be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. Copies of this

information may be obtained by request

from the Air Docket by calling (202)

260–7548. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying docket materials.

Electronic Access and Filing

Addresses. The official record for this

rulemaking has been established under

Docket No. A–97–54 (including

comments and data submitted

electronically). A public version of this

record, including printed, paper

versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information

claimed as confidential business

information (CBI), is available for

inspection from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center at: ‘‘A–

and–R–Docket@epamail.epa.gov.’’

Electronic comments must be submitted

in American Standard Code for

Information Interchange (ASCII) file

format. Avoid the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect

Version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format or

ASCII file format. All comments and

data in electronic form must be

identified by the docket number (A–97–

54). Electronic comments may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

Worldwide Web (WWW). The

proposed regulatory text will be

available on the WWW through the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN), a

network of the EPA’s electronic bulletin

boards. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various

areas of air pollution control. The TTN

is accessible through the Internet at

‘‘TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov’’. If more

information on the TTN is needed, call

the HELP line at (919) 541–5384.

Regulated Entities. Entities potentially

regulated by this action are those

industrial facilities that manufacture

wet-formed fiberglass mat. Wet-formed

fiberglass mat production is classified

under Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) code 3329325, a subset of SIC code

3329, Pressed and Blown Glass, Not

Elsewhere Classified. Regulated

categories and entities are shown in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34279

table 1. This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but provides a guide for

readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by final action on this

proposal. This table lists the types of

entities that EPA is now aware could

potentially be regulated by final action

on this proposal. To determine whether

your facility would be regulated by final

action on this proposal, carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

section III.A of this preamble and in

§ 63.2981 of the proposed rule. If there

are any questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult Mr. Juan

Santiago (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT).

TABLE 1.—REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES

Category SIC code Description

Industrial .......................................................................... 3329325 Wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities.

Incorporation by Reference. A request

for approval of the incorporation by

reference by the Director of the Office of

the Federal Register will be submitted

prior to promulgation of this rule for the

following material: Chapters 3 and 5 of

‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of

Recommended Practice,’’ American

Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists (22nd edition, 1995). The

procedures in this material are used for

designing the system for capturing and

conveying HAP emissions to the control

device. The incorporation by reference

of this publication is expected to be

approved by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register upon

promulgation.

Organization of this Document. The

information in this preamble is

organized as follows:

I. Introduction

A. Regulatory Background and Addition to

Source Category List

B. Solicitation of Comments

C. Source of Authority for National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants Development

D. What are the health effects of pollutants

emitted from this source category?

E. Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production

Industry Profile and Process Description

F. How were pollution prevention

practices considered in the development

of these proposed NESHAP?

II. What are the requirements of these

proposed NESHAP?

A. Do these proposed NESHAP apply to

me?

B. What emission standards must I meet?

C. What operating standards must I meet?

D. What are the performance test and

initial compliance provisions of these

proposed NESHAP?

E. What monitoring requirements must I

meet?

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements of these

proposed NESHAP?

III. What are the impacts of these proposed

NESHAP?

A. What are the air emission impacts?

B. What are the water and solid waste

impacts?

C. What are the energy impacts?

D. Are there any additional environmental

and health impacts?

E. What are the cost impacts?

F. What are the economic impacts?

IV. How were these proposed NESHAP

developed?

A. Selection of Emission Sources

B. Selection of MACT Floor

C. Emission Limits

D. Selection of Test Methods

E. Selection of Operating Standards and

Monitoring Requirements

V. What are the administrative requirements

of these proposed NESHAP?

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

C. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

D. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination with Tribal

Governments

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Introduction

A. Regulatory Background and Addition

to Source Category List

Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us

to list each category of major and area

sources, as appropriate, that emits one

or more of the 188 HAPs listed in

section 112(b) of the CAA. The term

‘‘major source’’ is defined in section

112(a)(1) to mean:

* * * any stationary source or group of

stationary sources located within a

contiguous area under common control that

emits or has the potential to emit,

considering controls, in the aggregate 10 tons

per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per

year or more of any combination of HAPs

***

We published an initial list of source

categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576). Included on the initial source

category list were major sources of HAP

emissions from the asphalt roofing and

processing industry.

During development of the asphalt

roofing and processing NESHAP,

industry representatives alerted us

about the existence of the wet-formed

fiberglass mat production industry, and

its relationship to the asphalt roofing

production industry. They indicated to

us that wet-formed fiberglass mat

production facilities have the potential

to be major sources of HAP emissions,

and some wet-formed fiberglass mat

production facilities are collocated with

asphalt roofing and processing facilities.

They expressed the opinion that there

should be a NESHAP for wet-formed

fiberglass mat production developed

separately from the asphalt roofing and

processing industry. We have decided to

propose a separate NESHAP for wetformed fiberglass mat production

because the production processes and

pollutant emissions differ from those in

the asphalt roofing industry. In

addition, wet-formed fiberglass mat is

produced at both stand-alone facilities

and those collocated with asphalt

roofing and processing facilities. The

CAA provides that we may amend the

list anytime. Consequently, wet-formed

fiberglass mat production is being added

to the source category list under section

112(c) of the CAA.

Wet-formed fiberglass mat is the

substrate for several asphalt roofing

products. In wet-formed fiberglass mat

production, glass fibers are bonded with

an organic resin. The mat is formed as

the resin is dried and cured in heated

ovens. The majority of HAP emissions

associated with wet-formed fiberglass

mat production are emitted from the

drying and curing oven exhaust. Based

on HAP emission data obtained during

the development of this proposed rule,

we have determined that wet-formed

fiberglass mat production facilities are

major sources of HAPs. Nine of the 14

facilities (10 of the 15 production lines)

control the drying and curing oven

exhaust emissions. All five of the

remaining facilities that do not control

the drying and curing oven exhaust are

major sources of HAPs (Docket No. A–

97–54).

Today’s action adds wet-formed

fiberglass mat production to the list of

source categories for which MACT

standards are to be developed. Final

standards for this source category are

required to be promulgated by May 26,

2002.

34280 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

B. Solicitation of Comments

We are seeking full public

participation in arriving at final

decisions and encourage comments on

all aspects of this proposal from all

interested parties. Full supporting data

and detailed analyses should be

submitted with comments to allow us to

make maximum use of the comments.

All comments should be sent according

to the information given in the

ADDRESSES section. Comments on this

proposal must be submitted on or before

the date specified in the DATES section.

C. Source of Authority for National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants Development

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to

promulgate standards for the control of

HAP emissions from each source

category listed under section 112(c). The

statute requires the standards to reflect

the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAPs that is achievable

taking into consideration the cost of

achieving the emission reduction, any

non-air quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements. This level of control is

commonly referred to as MACT. The

MACT standards can be based on the

emission reductions achievable through

application of measures, processes,

methods, systems, or techniques

including, but not limited to: (1)

Reducing the volume of, or eliminating

emissions of, such pollutants through

process changes, substitution of

materials, or other modifications; (2)

enclosing systems or processes to

eliminate emissions; (3) collecting,

capturing, or treating such pollutants

when released from a process, stack,

storage, or fugitive emissions point; (4)

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standards (including

requirements for operator training or

certification) as provided in section

112(h) of the CAA; or (5) a combination

of the above (see section 112(d)(2) of the

CAA).

For new sources, MACT standards

cannot be less stringent than the

emission control achieved in practice by

the best-controlled similar source (see

section 112(d)(3) of the CAA). The

MACT standards for existing sources

can be less stringent than standards for

new sources. However, they cannot be

less stringent than the average emission

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing

sources for categories and subcategories

with 30 or more sources, or the bestperforming five sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30

sources.

In essence, MACT standards are

designed to ensure that all major

sources of air toxic emissions achieve

the level of control already being

achieved by the better-controlled and

lower-emitting sources in each category.

This approach provides assurance to the

public that each major source of toxic

air pollution will be required to

effectively control its emissions. At the

same time, this approach provides a

level economic playing field, ensuring

that facilities that employ cleaner

processes and good emission controls

are not disadvantaged relative to

competitors with poorer controls.

D. What Are the Health Effects of

Pollutants Emitted From This Source

Category?

The CAA was created, in part, ‘‘to

protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population’’

(see section 101(b) of the CAA). The

proposed NESHAP would protect public

health by reducing emissions of HAPs

from wet-formed fiberglass mat

production facilities.

Emission data collected during

development of the proposed NESHAP

show that formaldehyde, vinyl acetate,

and methanol are emitted from wetformed fiberglass mat production

facilities (Docket No. A–97–54). The

proposed emission limits would reduce

emissions of formaldehyde, vinyl

acetate, and methanol emitted from

drying and curing ovens. As a result of

controlling these HAPs, the proposed

NESHAP would also reduce emissions

of volatile organic compounds (VOC).

Following is a summary of the potential

health effects caused by exposure to

these pollutants.

Exposure to formaldehyde, vinyl

acetate, and methanol irritates the eyes,

skin, and mucous membranes and can

cause conjunctivitis, dermal

inflammation, and respiratory

symptoms. Formaldehyde exposure has

been associated with reproductive

effects such as menstrual disorders and

pregnancy problems in female workers.

We have classified formaldehyde as

Class B1, a probable human carcinogen,

on the basis of findings of nasal cancer

in animal studies and limited human

data. Acute exposure to vinyl acetate is

known to cause irritation of the lungs

and nose, and irritation or blistering of

skin. Exposure to very high levels of

vinyl acetate can cause dizziness. Data

are not sufficient to classify vinyl

acetate as a potential human carcinogen.

Acute exposure to methanol (usually

by ingestion) is well known to cause

blindness and severe metabolic acidosis,

sometimes leading to death. Chronic

methanol exposure, including

inhalation, may cause central nervous

system disturbances possibly leading to

blindness. Methanol exposure has also

been linked to developmental effects in

animals. Data are not sufficient to

classify methanol as a potential human

carcinogen (Docket No. A–97–54).

The degree of adverse health effects

associated with HAP exposure can range

from mild to severe. The extent and

degree to which the health effects may

be experienced are dependent upon: (1)

The ambient concentrations observed in

the area (e.g., as influenced by emission

rates, meteorological conditions, and

terrain); (2) the frequency and duration

of exposures; (3) characteristics of

exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, age,

preexisting health conditions, and

lifestyles); and (4) pollutant-specific

characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in

the environment, and bioaccumulation).

Formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and

methanol are also VOC that are

precursors to tropospheric ozone

formation. Ambient concentrations in

excess of the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone

can damage lung tissue, reduce lung

function, and increase sensitivity of the

lung to other irritants. Additional

information on the health effects of

ozone are included in the EPA’s

‘‘Criteria Document’’ (three volumes,

EPA/600/P–93–004aF through EPA/600/

P–93–004cF, July 1996), which supports

the NAAQS for ozone. Many areas of the

country, including several in which

wet-formed fiberglass mat production

facilities are located, are not in

compliance with the NAAQS for ozone.

E. Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat

Production Industry Profile and Process

Description

Wet-formed fiberglass mat is currently

produced in the United States by nine

companies operating 14 plants (15

production lines) in nine States. These

plants may be collocated with asphalt

roofing plants because wet-formed

fiberglass mat can be used as a substrate

for manufacturing asphalt roofing

shingles and roll roofing products.

Wet-formed fiberglass mat is used as

a substrate for asphalt shingles and roll

roofing, as a reinforcement for

reinforced plastic composite products

(including thermosets and

thermoplastics) and for cement and

gypsum products, and in miscellaneous

specialty applications such as battery

separators and for pipe-wrapping and

flooring.

A typical wet-formed fiberglass mat

production line consists of the following

processes: (1) Preparation of glass fibers;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34281

(2) formation of fibers into a fiberglass

mat; (3) saturation with ureaformaldehyde binder solution; (4)

curing and drying the binder-coated

fiberglass mat; (5) cooling the mat; and

(6) trimming, cutting, and packaging.

Fiberglass mat is manufactured by

binding glass fibers with ureaformaldehyde resin. The glass fibers are

mixed with water and emulsifiers in

large (several thousand gallons) mixing

vats to form an aqueous slurry of fibers

and water. The slurry is then pumped

to another large vat that acts as a surge

tank and then to a third vat that is the

supply tank for the mat forming

machine.

The mat forming machine consists of

a slurry dispenser and moving wire

screen belt. The wire screen belt carries

the glass fiber mat throughout the

production process. The glass fiber

slurry is dispensed from a slot onto the

screen in a uniform curtain. After the

slurry is dispensed onto the screen, the

screen passes over a vacuum slot into

which the excess water and emulsion

are drawn, leaving only a layer of fibers

on the screen.

The mat of fibers then passes under a

binder dispenser. An aqueous solution

of urea-formaldehyde binder is

dispensed from a slot or a curtain coater

onto the mat of fibers in a uniform

curtain. Just after the binder is

dispensed onto the mat, the screen

passes over another vacuum slot into

which the excess binder solution is

drawn.

The mat of fibers and binder then

passes into a drying and curing oven.

This is a multiple-stage oven that uses

heated, forced air to carry away excess

moisture. In the first stage, the moisture

is driven from the binder. This causes

the binder to migrate to the points

where the glass fibers cross each other.

In the second and third stages of the

oven, the binder cures and hardens.

After leaving the oven, the finished mat

is wound into large rolls and prepared

for shipment.

The information in the Technical

Association of the Pulp and Paper

Industry (TAPPI) survey responses

(Docket No. A–97–54) and information

obtained from a single facility that did

not respond to the TAPPI survey

(Docket No. A–97–54) indicate that

drying and curing oven emissions from

10 of the 15 glass mat production lines

are controlled by thermal oxidizers. Five

facilities for which information is

available do not have add-on emission

controls on either the binder application

vacuum or the drying and curing oven

exhausts. No emission control devices

other than thermal oxidizers are used on

the drying and curing oven exhausts in

this industry.

The thermal oxidizers used in this

industry operate at temperatures that

range from about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees

Fahrenheit (°F) (540 to 820 degrees

Celsius (°C)) with residence times from

0.5 to 4.8 seconds. Most existing

thermal oxidizers are also designed for

energy recovery. Formaldehyde

destruction efficiencies, for those

facilities for which there are data, range

from about 90 percent to greater than 99

percent.

F. How Were Pollution Prevention

Practices Considered in the

Development of These Proposed

NESHAP?

The format of the proposed NESHAP

is a mass emission limit (kilograms of

formaldehyde per megagram of wetformed fiberglass mat produced) and an

equivalent percentage reduction

requirement compliance option. The

mass emission limit allows for the use

of pollution prevention practices in

place of add-on control devices. A

potential pollution prevention practice

could be a process modification to

reduce the formaldehyde content of

binder formulations.

II. What Are the Requirements of These

Proposed NESHAP?

A. Do These Proposed NESHAP Apply

to Me?

The proposed NESHAP would apply

to each existing and newly constructed

drying and curing oven located at a wetformed fiberglass mat production

facility that is a major source of HAPs

or that is collocated with a major source.

A major source means any source that

has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or

more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or

more of any combination of HAPs. If

your facility is determined to be an area

source, you would not be subject to

these proposed NESHAP.

B. What Emission Standards Must I

Meet?

The proposed NESHAP regulate

emissions of formaldehyde as a

surrogate for total HAP emissions.

Control of formaldehyde will also result

in control of vinyl acetate and methanol.

A mass emission limit and a percentage

reduction requirement compliance

option for formaldehyde are proposed

for each new and existing drying and

curing oven. The emission limits are the

same for new and existing sources. New

source and existing source emission

standards for the drying and curing

oven exhaust are a maximum

formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03

kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) of wetformed fiberglass mat produced (0.05

pounds per ton (lb/ton) of wet-formed

fiberglass mat produced) or a minimum

of 96 percent destruction efficiency of

formaldehyde (as shown in table 2). You

can choose to comply with either the

emission rate limit or the percent

reduction requirement. If you use a

thermal oxidizer or other control device

to achieve the mass emission limit or

percentage reduction requirement, you

must collect and convey the emissions

from each drying and curing oven to the

control device according to the

procedures specified in chapters 3 and

5 of ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual

of Recommended Practice.’’

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING DRYING AND CURING OVENS AT

WET-FORMED FIBERGLASS MAT MANUFACTURING PLANTS

Process Emission limit

Each existing and new drying and curing oven.0.03 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of fiberglass mat (0.05 lb of formaldehyde per ton of fiberglass mat).

OR

96 percent reduction of formaldehyde.

C. What Operating Standards Must I

Meet?

In addition to the emission standards,

the proposed NESHAP contain specific

operating standards, summarized in

Table 3. The operating standards require

you to maintain certain process or

control device parameters within the

levels established during the initial

performance test. In general, the

parameter values or ranges that must be

maintained, must be approved by the

34282 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Administrator based on the performance

test demonstrations. You must reference

the operating standards in the operating

permit that you are required to obtain

under 40 CFR part 70.

You must also submit for the

Administrator’s approval an operations,

maintenance, and monitoring (OMM)

plan for the facility. The OMM plan

specifies the parameters that must be

monitored, how they will be monitored,

and the corrective actions to follow

whenever a monitored parameter

deviates from the operating standards.

You must also reference the OMM plan

in your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF OPERATING STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SOURCES

Affected source Monitor type/operation/process Operating Standards

Drying and curing ovens .... Resin free-formaldehyde

content.

Use a resin with a free-formaldehyde content no greater than that of the resin used

during the performance test, as determined by the resin purchase specification or

test method.

Binder formulation formaldehyde content.Use a binder with a formaldehyde content no greater than that of the binder formulation used during the performance test.

Product urea-formaldehyde

resin solids content.

Do not manufacture a product with a urea-formaldehyde resin solids content per ton

of product higher than that of the product made during the performance test.

Loss-on-ignition .................. Do not exceed the loss-on-ignition value of the product made during the performance test.

Solids content of urea-formaldehyde resin.Do not exceed the solids content of the urea-formaldehyde resin used in the product

made during the performance test.

Drying and curing ovens

controlled by a thermal

oxidizer.

Thermal oxidizer operating

temperature.

Maintain the average temperature for each 3-hour period at or above the average

operating temperature achieved during the performance test.

Thermal oxidizer operation. Operate the thermal oxidizer in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan; annually inspect the thermal oxidizer for structural and design integrity.

Drying and curing ovens

controlled by modifications or a control device

other than a thermal oxidizer.

Process or control device

parameters.

Maintain the process or control device within the ranges established during the performance test.

All affected sources ............ Corrective action ................ Initiate corrective action within 1 hour of an established operating parameter excursion and complete and document action per operation, maintenance and monitoring plan.

If the operating parameters deviate

from the values or ranges specified in

your OMM plan, you would be in

violation of the standards. Following the

performance test, whenever a monitored

parameter deviates from the established

operating standards, you must initiate

the corrective actions specified in the

OMM plan within 1 hour. You must

complete the corrective actions in an

expeditious manner and implement

them as specified in your OMM plan.

If you use a thermal oxidizer to

achieve compliance with the emission

standards, you must operate the thermal

oxidizer so that the average operating

temperature in any 3-hour block period

does not fall below the average

temperature established during the

performance test. Additionally, an

annual inspection of the thermal

oxidizer is required to ensure that the

structural and design integrity of the

combustion chamber is maintained in

the same condition as during the

performance test. If you use process

modifications or an add-on control

device other than a thermal oxidizer to

achieve compliance with the emission

standards, you must maintain the

process or control device parameter(s)

within the required ranges that you

established during the performance test.

The operating standards also require

you to maintain the resin freeformaldehyde content, the binder

formulation formaldehyde content, the

solids content of the urea-formaldehyde

resin, the urea-formaldehyde resin

solids content of the product

manufactured, and the loss-on-ignition

value of the wet-formed fiberglass mat

produced within the levels you

established during a compliance test

and as specified in your OMM plan.

D. What Are the Performance Test and

Initial Compliance Provisions of These

Proposed NESHAP?

You must conduct a performance test

to demonstrate initial compliance with

the emission limits. The performance

test must be performed initially and

every 5 years following the initial

performance test. A performance test is

also required to change the value or

range of an operating standard. Under

the proposed NESHAP, you must

conduct the performance test while

operating at or near the maximum

production rate and while making wetformed fiberglass mat with the highest

urea-formaldehyde resin solids content,

loss-on-ignition value, using the resin

with the highest free-formaldehyde

content, and using the binder with the

highest formaldehyde content. You

must measure formaldehyde emissions

as the average of three test runs using

EPA Reference Method 316 in appendix

A of 40 CFR part 63, ‘‘Sampling and

Analysis for Formaldehyde from

Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool

and Wool Fiberglass Industries.’’ This

proposed method was published in the

March 31, 1997 Federal Register (63 FR

15288). You must demonstrate

compliance with either the mass

emission limit or the percentage

reduction requirement using the

instructions and equations contained in

the performance test requirement

section of this proposed NESHAP.

During the performance tests, you

must continuously monitor the thermal

oxidizer operating temperature and

record the average temperature in 15-

minute blocks during each 1-hour test

run. After completion of the three

required test runs, you must determine

the 3-hour average operating

temperature of the thermal oxidizer. If

you use process modifications or an

add-on control device other than a

thermal oxidizer to comply with the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34283

emission standards, you must determine

the appropriate control device or

process monitoring parameters to

indicate whether compliance is being

achieved. You must include the process

or control device parameters,

monitoring frequency, and the averaging

periods in your site-specific test plan

required by the 40 CFR part 63 general

provisions and approved by the

permitting agency prior to conducting

your initial performance test. You may

perform multiple tests to establish the

least restrictive value or operating range

for the selected parameters that still

demonstrate compliance.

During the performance tests, you

must also monitor and record the

average hourly wet-formed fiberglass

mat production rate prior to edge

trimming, the free-formaldehyde

content and the solids content of the

urea-formaldehyde resin used to

produce the mat, the formaldehyde

content of the binder used to produce

the mat, the urea-formaldehyde solids

content per ton of product, and the losson-ignition value of the product

manufactured during each of the three

test runs.

If you use a thermal oxidizer to

comply with these NESHAP, you must

conduct a performance evaluation for

the thermal oxidizer temperature

monitoring device prior to the initial

performance test to determine

compliance. The evaluation must be

conducted according to the procedures

in 40 CFR 63.8(e) of the NESHAP

general provisions. The temperature

monitoring device must meet the

following performance and equipment

specifications: (1) The temperature

monitoring device must be installed at

the exit of the combustion zone of each

thermal oxidizer; (2) the recorder

response range must include zero and

1.5 times the average temperature; and

(3) the reference method must be a

National Institute of Standards and

Technology calibrated reference

thermocouple-potentiometer system or

an alternate reference, subject to the

approval of the Administrator.

The proposed NESHAP would allow

facilities subject to the NESHAP to

conduct short-term experimental

production runs, where the

formaldehyde content or other process

parameters deviate from the levels

established during previous

performance tests, without conducting

additional performance tests. You must

apply for approval from the

Administrator or delegated State agency

to conduct such experimental

production runs. The application must

be made at least 30 days prior to

conducting the run. The application

would include information on the

nature and duration of the test runs

including plans to perform emissions

testing. Such experimental production

runs are important to industry and

allow them to develop new products,

improve existing products, and

determine the effects on emissions of

process modifications being considered,

such as binder formulation.

E. What Monitoring Requirements Must

I Meet?

Continuous compliance is

demonstrated after the initial

performance test and between

subsequent performance tests by

monitoring emission control devices

and process operating parameters. The

allowable monitoring parameter values

or ranges are determined during your

initial performance test and must be

approved by the Administrator.

If a thermal oxidizer is used to

achieve compliance with the emission

standards, you must monitor the

operating temperature of the thermal

oxidizer. If you use a thermal oxidizer

to achieve compliance with the

proposed emission standards, you must:

(1) Install, operate, calibrate, and

maintain a device that continuously

measures the operating temperature of

each thermal oxidizer; and (2)

determine and record the temperature in

15-minute and 3-hour block averages.

This is typically done using a

thermocouple (a standard feature on

most thermal oxidizers) and a chart

recorder or data logger. You are also

required to monitor the resin freeformaldehyde content, the binder

formulation formaldehyde content, the

solids content of the urea-formaldehyde

resin, the urea-formaldehyde resin

solids content of the product

manufactured, and the loss-on-ignition

value of the wet-formed fiberglass mat

produced. Because these process

parameters affect the amount of HAPs

emitted from the drying and curing

oven, you must monitor them to ensure

that operation of the production process

is consistent with the conditions of the

performance test, and that the

production process does not vary in

such a way as to increase HAP

emissions from the drying and curing

oven exhaust.

If process modifications or a control

device other than a thermal oxidizer is

used to achieve compliance with the

emission standards, you must monitor

the parameters that were established

during the performance test and

approved by the Administrator.

The proposed NESHAP contain

provisions that would allow you to

change the thermal oxidizer operating

temperature, add-on control devices,

and process parameter values from

those established using the initial and 5-

year performance tests. These

provisions would allow you to make

process changes or to demonstrate that

different monitoring parameter values

would more appropriately demonstrate

compliance with the proposed emission

standards. You may revise the

monitoring or process parameter values

by conducting additional performance

tests to verify compliance at the revised

operating levels. For example, if you

intend to use a urea-formaldehyde resin

with a higher free-formaldehyde or

solids content, produce a wet-formed

fiberglass mat with a higher ureaformaldehyde resin solids content, or

produce a product with a higher losson-ignition value, you must perform

additional performance tests to verify

compliance at the increased operating or

process parameters. You must request

and obtain approval from the

Administrator to conduct these

additional performance tests and must

submit performance data that justify and

support the expanded parameter ranges

before the facility is allowed to operate

under the revised monitoring

parameters.

F. What Are the Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements of These Proposed

NESHAP?

All notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements in the 40 CFR

part 63 general provisions, as well as

additional requirements, apply to wetformed fiberglass mat manufacturing

facilities. The notification and reporting

requirements include, but are not

limited to: (1) Initial notification of

applicability of the rule, notification of

the dates for conducting the

performance test, and notification of

compliance status; (2) a report of

performance test results; (3) a startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan; (4)

reports of any startup, shutdown, and

malfunction events that occur; and (5)

reports of excess emissions (i.e.,

monitoring parameter exceedances) and

continuous monitoring system

performance. When no exceedances

occur, you must submit semiannual

reports indicating that no exceedances

have occurred during the period. If

exceedances or deviations from

established monitoring parameters

occur, the frequency of submitting the

excess emission reports becomes

quarterly until a request to return to

semiannual reporting is approved by the

Administrator. You cannot submit the

request to reduce the frequency of the

reporting period until the affected

34284 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

source’s excess emissions and

continuous monitoring system

performance reports remain continually

within the established parameter ranges

for 1 full year.

You must maintain records of the

following, as applicable: (1) Thermal

oxidizer operating temperature; (2)

process parameters for drying and

curing ovens that comply with the

emission standards using process

modifications or an add-on control

device other than a thermal oxidizer; (3)

free-formaldehyde content of the resin;

(4) binder formulation formaldehyde

content; (5) loss-on-ignition value of the

wet-formed fiberglass mat produced; (6)

urea-formaldehyde resin solids content

per ton of the wet-formed fiberglass mat

produced; (7) average hourly wetformed fiberglass mat production rate;

(8) the date and time an exceedance

commenced if a parameter monitoring

exceedance occurs, the date and time

corrective actions were initiated and

completed, a description of the cause of

the exceedance, and a description of the

corrective actions taken; (9) the

approved OMM plan; (10) maintenance

and inspections performed on control

devices; and (11) any other information

required to be recorded in the general

provisions.

The NESHAP general provisions

require that records be maintained for at

least 5 years from the date of each

record. You would retain the records

onsite for at least 2 years but may retain

the records offsite for the remaining 3

years. The records must be readily

available and in a form suitable for

efficient inspection and review. The

files may be retained on paper, on

microfilm, on microfiche, on a

computer, on computer disks, or on

magnetic tape. Reports may be made on

paper or on a labeled computer disk

using commonly available and

compatible computer software.

III. What Are the Impacts of These

Proposed NESHAP?

A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?

At the current level of control,

nationwide emissions of HAPs from the

14 facilities in the industry are about

268 Mg/yr (295 tons/yr). Under the

proposed NESHAP, it is expected that

thermal oxidizers will be added to the

five uncontrolled drying and curing

ovens, and that existing thermal

oxidizers will be replaced with new

units for three out of the ten controlled

drying and curing ovens. This would

result in an estimated reduction in

nationwide HAP emissions of 199 Mg/

yr (219 tons/yr) (Docket No. A–97–54).

Formaldehyde emissions from wetformed fiberglass mat manufacturing

lines account for about 65 percent of the

baseline HAP emissions. Methanol

emissions account for approximately 30

percent, with vinyl acetate comprising

the remaining 5 percent of the baseline

HAP emissions. Estimated nationwide

emissions of formaldehyde from

existing wet-formed fiberglass mat

production lines are 174 Mg/yr (192

tons/yr) at the current level of control.

Implementing the proposed NESHAP

will reduce nationwide formaldehyde

emissions from existing sources by

about 130 Mg/yr (143 tons/yr) (Docket

No. A–97–54), and combined emissions

of vinyl acetate and methanol will be

reduced by 70 Mg/yr (77 tons/yr).

B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste

Impacts?

Because compliance with the

proposed NESHAP is based on the use

of thermal oxidizers, no water pollution

or solid waste impacts would result

from the proposed NESHAP.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

Thermal oxidizers require electrical

energy to operate fans. Additional

electrical energy requirements are

estimated to be 4,260 megawatt hours

per year (MW-hr/yr). An additional

275,000 million British thermal units

per year (Btu/yr) of natural gas are

estimated to be required for eight

additional thermal oxidizers that would

be added to existing sources. The total

additional energy (electricity and

natural gas) required as a result of the

proposed NESHAP is 290 billion Btu/yr

in the fifth year following promulgation

of the NESHAP (Docket No. A–97–54).

No new glass mat production lines are

projected in the 5 years after

promulgation; therefore, no increased

energy requirement is expected for new

glass mat production lines under the

proposed NESHAP.

D. Are There Any Additional

Environmental and Health Impacts?

Reducing HAP emissions will lower

occupational HAP and VOC exposure

levels. The operation of thermal

oxidizers may increase occupational

noise levels in the five facilities that

currently do not control HAP emissions.

E. What Are the Cost Impacts?

Cost impacts of the proposed

NESHAP for drying and curing ovens

were analyzed using site-specific

information included in the TAPPI

survey responses coupled with

procedures from the ‘‘OAQPS Cost

Manual’’ (Docket No. A–97–54). For

some facilities where site-specific data

necessary for estimating costs (e.g., a

vent flow rate) were not available,

average factors developed from industry

data were used to estimate the missing

data.

The total capital costs to achieve the

proposed NESHAP were estimated to be

$5,272,000. These capital cost impacts

arise from the purchase and installation

of eight thermal oxidizers—five thermal

oxidizers for the five facilities without

existing controls and three thermal

oxidizers for three facilities that must

replace existing thermal oxidizers that

cannot meet the proposed NESHAP. The

average capital costs of installing a new

thermal oxidizer is $658,000 per

oxidizer. The capital costs estimate to

install a new thermal oxidizer to

achieve compliance includes the cost of

auxiliary burners, combustion

chambers, primary heat exchangers,

weather-tight housing and insulation, a

fan, flow and temperature controls, a

stack, and structural supports.

Ten of the 15 wet-formed fiberglass

mat production lines have existing

thermal oxidizers. We have

formaldehyde emissions data for five of

the existing thermal oxidizers. Based on

an evaluation of the emissions data, four

of these five thermal oxidizers are

already achieving the formaldehyde

control level required by the proposed

NESHAP. Therefore, no thermal

oxidizer capital costs to comply with

the proposed NESHAP were estimated

for these four facilities. The fifth facility

controls both the drying and curing

oven exhaust and the binder application

vacuum exhaust. Since this facility is

not achieving the formaldehyde control

level required by the proposed

NESHAP, the cost of a new thermal

oxidizer was estimated for this facility.

The thermal oxidizer cost estimate is

based on the flow rate from the drying

and curing oven exhaust only since the

proposed NESHAP does not require

control of the binder application

vacuum exhaust.

No formaldehyde emissions data are

available for the remaining five existing

thermal oxidizers. Three facilities have

thermal oxidizers operating at

temperatures and residence times that

are as high as those that have achieved

the proposed formaldehyde control

level. Therefore, we expect that these

three facilities will be able to comply

with the proposed NESHAP using their

existing thermal oxidizers. No increases

in capital or annual costs were

estimated for these facilities. The two

remaining thermal oxidizers have

temperatures or residence times lower

than those at the facilities that are

achieving the proposed control levels.

Capital costs were estimated to replace

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34285

these two thermal oxidizers with new

thermal oxidizers that are designed to

meet the proposed NESHAP.

The proposed monitoring

requirements for the thermal oxidizer

operating temperature are not current

industry practice and are expected to

impose additional costs on facilities

with existing thermal oxidizers. To

estimate the impact of the additional

monitoring equipment (i.e., a data

logging system), a cost of $7,000 ($1,000

for each of the seven facilities with an

existing thermal oxidizer that is

achieving the proposed NESHAP) was

included in the capital cost estimate

(Docket No. A–97–54). No additional

capital costs were estimated for

monitoring equipment for the new

thermal oxidizers since temperature

monitors and recording devices are

standard equipment and are included in

the cost estimates for new thermal

oxidizers.

The total annualized cost of the

proposed NESHAP for eight new

thermal oxidizers is about $2,414,000.

The average annual cost for a typical

facility that installs a new thermal

oxidizer is $302,000. The annualized

cost estimate includes the cost of

operation, maintenance, supervisory

labor, maintenance materials, utilities,

administrative charges, taxes, insurance,

and capital recovery.

F. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The goal of the economic impact

analysis is to estimate the market

response of the wet-formed fiberglass

mat production industry to the

proposed emission standards and to

determine the economic effects that may

result from the proposed NESHAP. As

discussed above, 14 facilities owned by

nine different companies produce wetformed fiberglass mat domestically.

These facilities may potentially be

affected by the proposed NESHAP.

The estimated nationwide annualized

cost of the proposed NESHAP is $1.595

million. This cost estimate represents

approximately 0.069 percent of the 1995

sales revenues for domestically

produced wet-formed fiberglass mat.

Based upon this estimate, it is

reasonable to assume that market price

increases and production decreases

resulting from the proposed NESHAP

are likely to be very small. Thus, we

conclude that the proposed NESHAP is

not likely to have a significant economic

impact on the wet-formed fiberglass mat

industry as a whole or on secondary

markets such as the labor market and

foreign trade.

We performed a streamlined

economic analysis to determine facilityspecific impacts. The facility-specific

impacts are examined by calculating the

ratio of the estimated annualized costs

of emission controls for each facility to

the estimated revenues per facility (i.e.,

a cost-to-sales ratio) to assess the

likelihood of facility closures and

employment impacts. Cost-to-sales

ratios refer to the change in the cost of

emission controls divided by the sales

revenue of wet-formed fiberglass mat,

the goods produced in the process for

which additional pollution control is

required. This ratio can be estimated for

either individual firms or as an average

for some set of firms such as affected

small firms. While it has different

significance for different market

situations, it is a good rough gauge of

potential impact. If costs for the

individual (or group of) firms are

completely passed onto the purchasers

of the good(s) being produced, the ratio

is an estimate of the price change (in

percentage form after multiplying the

ratio by 100). If costs are completely

absorbed by the producer, this ratio is

an estimate of changes in pretax profits

(in percentage form after multiplying

the ratio by 100). The distribution of

cost-to-sales ratios across the whole

market, the competitiveness of the

market, and profit-to-sales ratios are

among the obvious factors that may

influence the significance of any

particular cost-to-sales ratio for an

individual facility.

For these proposed NESHAP, a costto-sales ratio exceeding 1 percent was

determined to be an initial indicator of

the potential for a significant facility

impact. Each of the 14 facilities affected

by the proposed NESHAP has cost-tosales ratios of less than 1 percent of

sales. Therefore, the facility-specific

impacts are not considered to be

significant for any facility affected by

the proposed NESHAP. No facility is

likely to close as a result of the

proposed NESHAP. Facilities in the

wet-formed fiberglass mat production

industry are likely to increase the price

charged for the product in response to

market price changes, to absorb the

costs with no price increase, or to

respond with a combination of these

alternatives. The economic impacts to

consumers and producers of wet-formed

fiberglass mat are anticipated to be

minimal. The generally small scale of

the impacts suggests that there will also

be no significant impacts on markets for

the products made using wet-formed

fiberglass mat. For more information,

consult the economic impact report

entitled ‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for

the Proposed National Emission

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from the Production of Wet-Formed

Fiberglass Mat,’’ January 1999 (Docket

No. A–97–54).

IV. How Were These Proposed NESHAP

Developed?

A. Selection of Emission Sources

In the wet-formed fiberglass mat

production industry, HAPs are emitted

from two processes: binder application

processes and drying and curing

processes. For the reasons described

below, we selected the drying and

curing processes at new and existing

wet-formed fiberglass mat production

lines for control under the proposed

NESHAP.

The drying and curing oven drives off

moisture remaining on the fibers and

sets the binder using heated air. Fans

are used to draw hot air through the mat

within each of the oven zones; the hot

air may be recycled within each zone to

conserve energy. Emissions of

formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and

methanol result from vaporization of

volatile compounds in the binder.

Emissions from ten of the 15 drying and

curing ovens on wet-formed fiberglass

manufacturing lines are controlled by

thermal oxidizers. Emissions from the

remaining five ovens are uncontrolled.

The emissions from the drying and

curing ovens account for approximately

90 percent of the total HAP emissions

from wet-formed fiberglass mat

production facilities. Although one

facility controls the vent gases from the

binder application vacuum exhaust

along with the drying and curing oven

exhaust, we do not consider the control

of the binder application vacuum

exhaust at this facility to represent

MACT for new sources. When the

binder application vacuum exhaust is

controlled using an existing thermal

oxidizer designed to control only the

drying and curing oven exhaust, the

overall HAP reduction achieved by the

thermal oxidizer is decreased (Docket

No. A–97–54). Introducing the binder

application vacuum exhaust into an

existing thermal oxidizer decreases the

performance of the thermal oxidizer

because of the decreased residence time

in the thermal oxidizer and the high

moisture content of the binder

application vacuum exhaust. No binder

application vacuum exhausts are

controlled using stand-alone thermal

oxidizers. In addition, the costs of

controlling the binder application

vacuum exhaust by requiring a standalone thermal oxidizer would be

unreasonably high. For these reasons,

we propose to regulate HAP emissions

at the MACT floor only from the drying

and curing oven processes.

34286 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

B. Selection of MACT Floor

After identifying the MACT floors for

new and existing sources, we must

investigate regulatory alternatives.

Regulatory alternatives are different

levels of emissions control, equal to or

more stringent than the MACT floor

levels. Information about the industry is

analyzed to project national impacts

(which include HAP emission reduction

levels and cost, energy, and non-air

quality health and environmental

impacts) and to select the regulatory

alternative that best reflects MACT. The

selected alternative may be more

stringent than the MACT floor, but the

control level must be achievable and

reasonable in the Administrator’s

judgement considering cost, non-air

quality health and environmental

impacts, and energy requirements. The

objective is to achieve the maximum

degree of emissions reduction without

imposing unreasonable impacts (see

section 112(d)(2) of the CAA). The

regulatory alternatives and emission

limits selected for new and existing

sources may be different because of

different MACT floors.

In establishing the MACT standards,

we may distinguish among classes,

types, and sizes of sources within a

category or subcategory when there are

significant differences among the classes

or subcategories (see section 112(d)(1) of

the CAA). For the wet-formed fiberglass

mat industry, we examined the

processes, the process operations, and

other factors to determine if separate

classes of units, operations, or other

criteria have an effect on air emissions

or their controllability that would justify

subcategories. Because all the wetformed fiberglass mat production

facilities use similar processes and emit

the same pollutants, there is no basis for

establishing subcategories. Therefore,

we decided to regulate wet-formed

fiberglass mat production as one source

category.

Because the wet-formed fiberglass mat

production industry has fewer than 30

sources, the MACT floor for existing

sources is based on the average of the

best-performing five sources. Nine

facilities (10 production lines) of the 14

facilities (15 production lines) use a

thermal oxidizer to control HAP

emissions from the drying and curing

oven exhaust. Emission reductions

achieved by thermal oxidizers represent

the best emissions control technology

achieved by sources subject to the

proposed standards. Thus, the MACT

floor for existing sources is the level of

control achieved by a thermal oxidizer.

The new source MACT floor is based

on the emission control that is achieved

in practice by the best-controlled similar

source. Because the best-controlled

drying and curing oven uses a thermal

oxidizer and no more effective control

technology than thermal oxidation has

been achieved to control gaseous HAPs,

this is also the MACT floor level of

control for new sources.

One facility currently controls the

emissions from the binder application

vacuum exhaust using a thermal

oxidizer originally designed to control

only the drying and curing oven

exhaust. Because the existing thermal

oxidizer was not designed to control the

binder application vacuum exhaust

along with the drying and curing oven

exhaust, a lower overall HAP reduction

is achieved at this facility than by

facilities controlling only the drying and

curing oven exhaust. The overall HAP

level of control is compromised due to

the decreased residence time in the

thermal oxidizer and the high moisture

content of the binder application

vacuum exhaust. Therefore, because it is

not the best controlled source, we do

not consider the control of the binder

application vacuum exhaust at this

facility to represent the MACT floor for

new sources.

Currently, we are not aware of any

available controls that are better than a

thermal oxidizer for controlling gaseous

HAP emissions at wet-formed fiberglass

mat production lines. We considered

controlling the binder application

vacuum exhaust emissions in addition

to the drying and curing oven exhaust

emissions. We have determined that

controlling the binder application

vacuum exhaust emissions with a standalone thermal oxidizer was the only

available beyond-the-floor option for

existing sources. The incremental cost

of controlling the binder application

vacuum exhaust with a dedicated

thermal oxidizer is approximately

$39,200/Mg ($35,700/ton) of HAP

reduced (Docket No. A–97–54). As

discussed above, it is not possible to

combine the binder application vacuum

exhaust with the drying and curing oven

exhaust at existing facilities without

decreasing the performance of the

existing thermal oxidizer. We did not

select this control scenario because it

achieves a lower overall HAP reduction.

As with existing sources, the only

option more stringent than the MACT

floor level of control for new sources is

control of the binder application

vacuum exhaust in addition to

controlling the drying and curing oven

exhaust. For new sources, a thermal

oxidizer could be designed to handle

both emission sources. Therefore, for

this analysis, we assumed that a single

thermal oxidizer would be used to

control both the drying and curing oven

exhaust and the binder application

vacuum exhaust. This assumption was

made since controlling the drying and

curing oven exhaust and the binder

application vacuum exhaust in separate

thermal oxidizers would be more

expensive than a single thermal oxidizer

for both emission sources (Docket No.

A–97–54).

The estimated incremental cost for

new sources to control both the drying

and curing oven exhaust and the binder

application vacuum exhaust with one

thermal oxidizer is approximately

$12,800/Mg ($11,600/ton) of HAP

reduced. The new source control cost

estimates are based on a representative

wet-formed fiberglass mat production

facility controlling both the drying and

curing oven exhaust and the binder

application vacuum exhaust with a

single thermal oxidizer (Docket No. A–

97–54). Based on this evaluation, we

concluded that the cost of controlling

the binder application vacuum exhaust

at new sources is unreasonable at this

time.

For each of the cases evaluated above,

we did not identify emission control

technologies or control of additional

emission sources that would reduce

emissions to a level below the MACT

floor without imposing costs which we

concluded are unreasonable at this time.

Therefore, we are proposing emission

limits at the MACT floor level of

control.

C. Emission Limits

We have performance data for five

facilities in this industry that use

thermal oxidizers to control drying and

curing oven exhaust streams. Table 4

summarizes the available formaldehyde

emissions data from these facilities.

However, data from only four thermal

oxidizers were used to determine the

proposed emission limits. The

performance of the thermal oxidizer at

the fifth facility was not considered

representative of the MACT floor level

of control. This facility controls the

emissions from the binder application

vacuum exhaust using a thermal

oxidizer originally designed to control

only the emissions from the drying and

curing oven exhaust. Because the binder

application vacuum exhaust is a cooler

and more dilute stream than the drying

and curing oven exhaust, the residence

time in the combustion chamber is

decreased and HAP destruction

efficiency is reduced. Therefore, data

from plant E in table 4 were not used

to determine emission limits for drying

and curing ovens.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34287

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION TEST RESULTS ON WET-FORMED FIBERGLASS MAT PRODUCTION

LINES FOR DRYING AND CURING OVEN EXHAUST

Plant Thermal oxidizer parameters b

Average formaldehyde emissions a

Calculated control

device efficiency

(% destruction)

Uncontrolled Controlled

kg/Mg lb/ton kg/Mg lb/ton

A .................................................. 1500 °F, 1.25 s RT 1.972 3.945 0.0065 0.013 99.7

B .................................................. 1500 °F, 1 s RT 0.415 0.830 0.0018 0.0037 99.5

C .................................................. 1350 °F, 0.75 s RT 0.296 0.591 0.0035 0.0070 98.8

D .................................................. 1400 °F, 1.2 s RT 0.590 1.18 0.02 0.04 96.4

Ec ................................................ 1500 °F, 0.6 s RT 0.970 1.94 0.095 0.19 90.1

aEmission units are kg (lb) of formaldehyde per Mg (ton) of fiberglass mat product.

b RT = Retention time.

cThis facility also controls the binder application vacuum exhaust with the thermal oxidizer that was originally designed to control only the drying and curing oven exhaust. Therefore, this thermal oxidizer was not considered representative of the MACT floor level of control.

The controlled emission rates of the

four thermal oxidizers that represent the

MACT floor level of control range from

0.0018 to 0.02 kg/Mg (0.0037 to 0.04 lb/

ton) and the destruction efficiencies

range from 99.7 to 96.4 percent

efficiency. We believe that the

differences in the performance achieved

by the four thermal oxidizers are due to

differences in operating temperature,

residence time, combustion chamber

design, and variations in uncontrolled

emissions that occur in this industry.

Considering these variables, we

consider the performance of the four

well-designed and -operated thermal

oxidizers to represent the MACT floor

level of control. Based on the data from

all four sources with well-designed and

-operated thermal oxidizers, and

considering the variability in

performance of a thermal oxidizer

representative of the MACT floor level

of control, we have selected a mass

emission limit of 0.03 kg/Mg as the

standard for new and existing sources.

The 0.03 kg/Mg mass emission limit

selected is somewhat higher that the

short-term test result of 0.02 kg/Mg for

the fourth thermal oxidizer. However,

the selected mass emission limit allows

for long-term process and control

equipment variability.

We are also establishing an alternative

percentage reduction efficiency

standard to address situations in which

a facility cannot achieve the 0.03 kg/Mg

mass emission limit due to process

variations while operating technology

representative of the MACT floor level

of control. Considering the data from all

four of the sources with well-designed

and -operated thermal oxidizers

representative of the MACT floor level

of control, and considering the

variability in performance of a thermal

oxidizer representative of the MACT

floor level of control, we have selected

a 96 percent destruction efficiency as

the alternative standard. Sources subject

to these emission standards would be

allowed to demonstrate compliance by

either meeting a mass emission limit of

0.03 kg/Mg (0.05 lb/ton) of product or

achieving a 96 percent destruction

efficiency. For example, a facility with

a high inlet formaldehyde concentration

may not be able to achieve the mass

emission limit but could comply with

the percentage reduction.

D. Selection of Test Methods

Under the proposed NESHAP, you

must conduct a performance test using

formaldehyde as a surrogate measure for

all organic HAPs. You must measure

formaldehyde emissions using EPA

Reference Method 316 or any other

alternative method that has been

approved by the Administrator under

§ 63.7(f) of the general provisions.

The EPA Reference Method 316,

‘‘Sampling and Analysis for

Formaldehyde Emissions from

Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool

and Wool Fiberglass Industries,’’ is a

manual test method that measures

formaldehyde by spectrophotometry

using the modified pararosaniline

method. The method was validated at a

mineral wool manufacturing facility,

which has been determined to be a

similar source, according to the

procedures in EPA Validation Method

301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. In

Method 316, gases are withdrawn

isokinetically from an emission source

and are collected in high-purity water.

Formaldehyde present in the emissions

is highly soluble in water.

Formaldehyde in the sample reacts with

acidic pararosaniline and sodium

sulfite, forming a purple chromophore.

The intensity of the purple color,

measured spectrophotometrically,

provides a measure of the formaldehyde

concentration in the sample.

Using the results of the performance

tests, you would use the equations and

procedures in the rule to convert the

formaldehyde emission rate into either

a kg/Mg (lb/ton) of product emission

rate or a percentage removal value.

Appendix A to the proposed standards

contains a method for determining the

free-formaldehyde content of ureaformaldehyde resins. Appendix B to the

proposed standards contains a method

for determining the loss-on-ignition of

the product. You must monitor these

parameters to ensure compliance with

the standards between performance

tests.

E. Selection of Operating Standards and

Monitoring Requirements

We believe that the operating

standards and monitoring requirements

discussed in sections II.C and II.E,

respectively, will provide sufficient

information needed to determine

continuing compliance or identify

operating problems at the source. At the

same time, the provisions are not labor

intensive, do not require expensive or

complex equipment, and do not require

burdensome recordkeeping. For

example, temperature monitoring and

recording equipment are standard

features on thermal oxidizers. Resin

free-formaldehyde content is a standard

purchase specification for resin. Finally,

the solids content of the ureaformaldehyde resins, the ureaformaldehyde solids content, the binder

formulation formaldehyde content, and

loss-on-ignition value of the product

manufactured are monitored and

recorded as part of normal product

quality control procedures.

V. What Are the Administrative

Requirements of These Proposed

NESHAP?

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to

34288 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this action

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of the Executive Order

and is, therefore, not subject to OMB

review. However, an economic analysis

of the proposed NESHAP was prepared

and is available in the docket (Docket

A–97–54).

B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns the

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

EPA must evaluate the environmental

health or safety effects of the planned

rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by EPA.

The EPA interprets Executive Order

13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5–501 of

the Order has the potential to influence

the regulation. This proposed rule is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is not an economically

significant regulatory action as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and it is

based on technology performance and

not on health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

provide to OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include

a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with State and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and the agency’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation, and a statement of the extent

to which the concerns of State and local

officials have been met. Also, when EPA

transmits a draft final rule with

federalism implications to OMB for

review pursuant to Executive Order

12866, EPA must include a certification

from the Agency’s Federalism Official

stating that EPA has met the

requirements of Executive Order 13132

in a meaningful and timely manner.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This

determination has been made since

none of the affected facilities under this

proposed rule are owned or operated by

State or local governments. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule. Although section 6 of Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule,

EPA did consult with State and local

officials in developing the proposed

rule.

D. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments

or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of the EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected tribal governments, a summary

of the nature of their concerns, and a

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s proposed rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. No affected facilities are

owned or operated by Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this proposed rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any 1 year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34289

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, it must have developed,

under section 203 of the UMRA, a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of the EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this

proposed 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 nationwide capital

cost for the proposed standard is

estimated at $5.3 million; the

annualized nationwide cost is estimated

at $2.4 million. Thus, today’s proposed

rule is not subject to the requirements

of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statue 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 today’s proposed rule on small

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a

small business that has less than 750

employees; (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 non-for-profit

enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s proposed rule on

small entities, I certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. We have determined that only

two of the nine companies producing

wet-formed fiberglass mat are small

businesses. One of these small

businesses is not anticipated to incur

emission control costs because it

already has controls in place which

should achieve the MACT emission

levels. Therefore, only one small firm in

the wet-formed fiberglass mat

production industry is expected to incur

emission control costs as a result of the

regulation. This small business is

expected to incur control costs that

represent 0.3441 percent of current sales

revenues, a cost-to-sales ratio

substantially below 1 percent (the

criterion established as a first indicator

of the potential for significant impact).

As a result of the increased costs of

emission controls, this small entity in

the affected industry will likely increase

the price of its product in response to

a market change in price, will absorb the

cost increase with no price increase, or

will respond with a combination of

these responses. Since the estimated

costs as a percentage of sales are

relatively minimal, it is anticipated that

the regulation will not have a significant

impact on this company’s profitability.

Although this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the

impact of this proposed rule on small

entities by providing flexibility by

offering a choice of compliance and

monitoring options. Compliance options

include mass emission limits or percent

reduction standards. Compliance with

the proposed standard can be achieved

through the use of a thermal oxidizer or

other control device. Pollution

prevention practices, such as process

modifications, are also included in the

proposed rule. 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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB

under the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. ll), and a

copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Environmental

Information, Collection Strategies

Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, or

by calling (202) 260–2740.

The information requirements

contained in the proposed NESHAP are

necessary to determine initial and

continuous compliance with the

emission standards. The proposed

information requirements include the

notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of the NESHAP

general provisions, authorized under

section 114 of the CAA, which are

mandatory for all owners or operators

subject to national emission standards.

All information submitted to EPA for

which a claim of confidentiality is made

is safeguarded according to Agency

policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The

proposed rule does not require any

notifications or reports beyond the

minimum required by the general

provisions. Proposed subpart HHHH

requires additional records of

information specific to the wet-formed

fiberglass mat production industry

which are needed to determine

compliance with the rule.

The annual public reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

is estimated at 2,983 labor hours per

year at an annual cost of $98,183. This

estimate includes an initial performance

test and report (with repeat tests where

needed); one-time preparation of a

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan with semiannual reports of any

event in which the procedures in the

plan were not followed; semiannual

excess emissions reports; notifications;

the operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan; and recordkeeping.

The annualized capital cost associated

with monitoring requirements is

estimated at $2,300.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, verifying,

processing, maintaining, disclosing, and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search existing data sources; complete

and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

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

34290 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

control number. The OMB control

numbers for the EPA’s regulations are

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR

chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including the use of

automated collection techniques, to the

Director, Collection Strategies Division,

Office of Environmental Information,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20460, and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th Street NW,

Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’ Refer

to ICR 1964.01 in any correspondence.

Because OMB is required to make a

decision concerning the ICR between 30

and 60 days after May 26, 2000. A

comment to OMB is most likely to have

its full effect if OMB receives it by June

26, 2000. The final rule will respond to

any OMB or public comments on the

information collection requirements

contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113,

directs all Federal Agencies to use

voluntary consensus standards in

regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards (VCS) are technical standards

(such as materials specifications, test

methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) which are developed

or adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. The NTTAA requires

Federal agencies to provide Congress,

through annual reports to OMB, with

explanations when an agency does not

use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA

conducted searches to identify

voluntary consensus standards for the

EPA’s emissions sampling and analysis

reference methods and industry

recommended materials analysis

procedures cited in this rule. Candidate

voluntary consensus standards for

materials analysis were identified for

product loss-on-ignition and free

formaldehyde content. Consensus

comments provided by industry experts

were that the candidate standards did

not meet industry materials analysis

requirements. Therefore, EPA has

determined these VCS were impractical

for the wet-formed fiberglass mat

production NESHAP. The EPA, in

consultation with the Technical

Association for the Pulp and Paper

Industry (TAPPI), has formulated

industry-specific materials analysis

consensus standards which are

proposed in this rule.

The EPA search to identify VCS for

the EPA’s emissions sampling and

analysis reference methods cited in this

proposed rule identified six candidate

standards that appeared to have possible

use in lieu of EPA standard reference

methods. However, after reviewing

available standards, EPA determined

that four of the candidate consensus

standards identified for measuring

emissions of the HAPs or surrogates

subject to emission standards in the

proposed rule would not be practical

due to lack of equivalency,

documentation, and validation data.

Two of the remaining candidate

consensus standards are new standards

under development that EPA plans to

follow, review and consider adopting at

a later date.

The EPA takes comment on

compliance demonstration requirements

proposed in this rulemaking and

specifically invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable VCS.

Commentors should also explain why

this proposed rule should adopt these

VCS in lieu of EPA’s test methods.

Emission test methods and performance

specifications submitted for evaluation

should be accompanied with a basis for

the recommendation, including method

validation data and the procedure used

to validate the candidate method (if

method other than Method 301, 40 CFR

part 63, appendix A was used).

Section 63.2993 of the proposed

NESHAP lists the EPA testing methods.

These testing methods have been used

by States and industry for more than 10

years.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I,

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart HHHH to read as follows:

Subpart HHHH—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat

Production

Sec.

Introduction and Applicability

63.2980 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

63.2981 Does this subpart apply to me?

63.2982 Where can I find definitions of key

words used in this subpart?

Standards

63.2983 What emission standards must I

meet?

63.2984 What operating standards must I

meet?

63.2985 When must I meet these standards?

63.2986 How do I comply with the

standards?

Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring

Plan

63.2987 What must my operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

include?

63.2988 How do I get my operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

approved?

63.2989 How do I change my operation,

maintenance and monitoring plan?

63.2990 Can I conduct short-term

experimental production runs that cause

parameters to deviate from operating

standards?

Performance Test Requirements

63.2991 When must I conduct performance

tests?

63.2992 How do I conduct a performance

test?

63.2993 What test methods must I use in

conducting performance tests?

63.2994 How do I verify the performance of

monitoring equipment?

63.2995 What equations must I use to

determine compliance?

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

63.2996 What must I monitor?

63.2997 What are the requirements for

monitoring devices?

63.2998 What records must I maintain?

63.2999 For how long must I maintain

records?

63.3000 What reports must I submit?

Other Requirements and Information

63.3001 What portions of the general

provisions apply to me?

63.3002 Who enforces this subpart?

63.3003 Incorporation by reference.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34291

63.3004 What definitions must I

understand?

63.3005— 63.3079 [Reserved].

Tables

Table 1 of Subpart HHHH—Minimum

Requirements for Monitoring and

Recordkeeping

Table 2 of Subpart HHHH—Applicability of

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A) to Subpart HHHH

Appendices

Appendix A to Subpart HHHH to Part 63—

Method for Determining FreeFormaldehyde in Urea-Formaldehyde

Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced & Cooled)

Appendix B to Subpart HHHH to Part 63—

Method for the Determination of Loss-onIgnition

Subpart HHHH—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat

Production

Introduction and Applicability

§ 63.2980 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

This subpart establishes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants for existing, new, and

reconstructed drying and curing ovens

at facilities that produce wet-formed

fiberglass mat.

§ 63.2981 Does this subpart apply to me?

You must comply with this subpart if

you meet the criteria in paragraphs (a),

(b), (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this

section:

(a) You own or operate a drying and

curing oven at a wet-formed fiberglass

mat production facility.

(b) The facility at which your drying

and curing oven is located emits or has

the potential to emit in the aggregate

either:

(1) A single hazardous air pollutant at

a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or

more per year; or

(2) Any combination of hazardous air

pollutants at a rate of 22.68 megagrams

(25 tons) or more per year.

§ 63.2982 Where can I find definitions of

key words used in this subpart?

The definitions of keywords used in

this subpart are in §§ 63.2 and 63.3004.

Standards

§ 63.2983 What emission standards must I

meet?

(a) You must control the

formaldehyde emissions from each

drying and curing oven by either:

(1) Limiting emissions of

formaldehyde to 0.03 kilograms or less

per megagram (0.05 pounds per ton) of

fiberglass mat produced; or

(2) Reducing uncontrolled

formaldehyde emissions by 96 percent

or more.

(b) [Reserved]

§ 63.2984 What operating standards must I

meet?

(a) You must maintain operating

parameters within established limits or

ranges specified in your operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

described in § 63.2987. If any of the

specified parameters deviate from the

limit or range specified in the operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan, an

operating parameter excursion occurs

and must be addressed according to

paragraph (b) of this section. The

operating parameters in paragraphs

(a)(1) through (7) of this section must be

maintained:

(1) You must operate the thermal

oxidizer so that the average operating

temperature in any 3-hour block period

does not fall below the temperature

established during your performance

test and specified in your approved

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

plan.

(2) You must maintain the process or

emission control device parameters

within the ranges established during the

performance test and specified in your

approved operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(3) You must not use a resin with a

free-formaldehyde content greater than

that of the resin used during your

performance test and specified in your

approved operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(4) You must not use a binder

formulation with a urea formaldehyde

content greater than that of the binder

formulation used during your

performance test and specified in your

approved operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(5) You must not use a ureaformaldehyde (UF) resin with a solids

content greater than that of the resin

used during your performance test and

specified in your approved operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(6) You must not manufacture a

product with a higher UF resin solids

content per ton of product (including

any material trimmed from the final

product) than that of the product

manufactured during your performance

test and specified in your approved

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

plan.

(7) You must not produce products

that have a loss-on-ignition value greater

than that of the product manufactured

during your performance test and

specified in your approved operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(b) When you detect that an operating

parameter deviates from the limit or

range established in paragraph (a) of this

section, you must initiate corrective

actions within 1 hour according to the

provisions of your operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan. The

corrective actions must be completed in

an expeditious manner as specified in

the operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(c) You must maintain and inspect

control devices according to the

procedures specified in the operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(d) You must reference the operating

standards and their allowable ranges or

limits and your operation, maintenance,

and monitoring plan in the 40 CFR part

70 operating permit application for the

drying and curing oven.

(e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or

other control device to achieve the

emission standards in § 63.2983, you

must capture and convey the

formaldehyde emissions from each

drying and curing oven according to the

procedures in chapters 3 and 5 of

‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of

Recommended Practice (22nd Edition).’’

This publication is incorporated by

reference in § 63.3003.

§ 63.2985 When must I meet these

standards?

(a) Existing drying and curing ovens

must be in compliance with this subpart

no later than [3 years after date final

rule is published in the Federal

Register].

(b) New or reconstructed drying and

curing ovens must be in compliance

with this subpart at startup or by [the

date final rule is published in the

Federal Register], whichever is later.

For the purpose of this subpart, a new

drying and curing oven is defined as

each drying and curing oven that

commences construction or

reconstruction after May 26, 2000.

§ 63.2986 How do I comply with the

standards?

(a) You must install, maintain, and

operate a thermal oxidizer or other

control device or implement a process

modification that reduces formaldehyde

emissions from each drying and curing

oven to the limits specified in the

emission standards in § 63.2983.

(b) You must comply with the

operating standards of this subpart. The

operating standards prescribe the

requirements for demonstrating

continuous compliance, based on the

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

plan. Requirements for operating

standards are specified in § 63.2984.

(c) You must conduct a performance

test to demonstrate compliance for each

34292 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

drying and curing oven subject to the

emission standards of this subpart and

to establish the limits or ranges for

process or control device parameters

that will be monitored to demonstrate

continuous compliance. You must

repeat the test every 5 years as part of

renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating

permit. A performance test is also

required to change the limit or range for

any operating parameter specified in the

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

plan. In conducting performance tests,

you must meet the requirements of

§ 63.7 for test dates; notifications;

quality assurance program; testing

facilities; conduct of the test; use of an

alternate test method; data analysis,

recordkeeping, and reporting; and

requesting a test to be waived. You must

also conduct the tests under the

conditions specified in § 63.2992 and

after verifying the performance of

monitoring equipment as specified in

§ 63.2994.

(d) You must install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate devices that

monitor the parameters specified in

your approved operation, maintenance,

and monitoring plan at the frequency

specified in the plan.

(e) You must prepare and follow a

written operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. The plan must be

submitted to the Administrator for

review and approval and must be

referenced by your 40 CFR part 70

operating permit. The plan must

include, as a minimum, the information

specified in § 63.2987.

(f) You must comply with the

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of this subpart.

You must perform the monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting required

in §§ 63.2996 through 63.3000.

Operation, Maintenance, and

Monitoring Plan

§ 63.2987 What must my operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan include?

(a) You must prescribe the monitoring

that will be performed to ensure

compliance with the standards in this

subpart. Minimum monitoring

requirements are listed in table 1 of this

subpart. Your plan must specify the

items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(3) of this section:

(1) Each process and control device to

be monitored, the type of monitoring

device that will be used, and the

operating parameters that will be

monitored.

(2) A monitoring schedule that

specifies the frequency that the

parameter values will be determined

and recorded.

(3) The limits or ranges for each

parameter that represent continuous

compliance with the emission standards

in § 63.2983. Limits and ranges must be

based on values of the monitored

parameters recorded during

performance tests.

(b) You must establish routine and

long-term maintenance and inspection

schedules for each control device. You

must incorporate in the schedules the

control device manufacturer’s

recommendations for maintenance and

inspections or equivalent procedures. If

you use a thermal oxidizer, the

maintenance schedule must include

procedures for annual or more frequent

inspection of the thermal oxidizer to

ensure that the structural and design

integrity of the combustion chamber is

maintained. At a minimum, you must

meet the requirements of paragraphs

(b)(1) through (10) of this section:

(1) Inspect all burners, pilot

assemblies, and pilot sensing devices for

proper operation. Clean pilot sensor if

necessary.

(2) Ensure proper adjustment of

combustion air and adjust if necessary.

(3) Inspect, when possible, all internal

structures (such as baffles) to ensure

structural integrity per the design

specifications.

(4) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers

for proper operation.

(5) Inspect motors for proper

operation.

(6) Inspect, when possible,

combustion chamber refractory lining.

Clean and repair or replace lining if

necessary.

(7) Inspect the thermal oxidizer shell

for proper sealing, corrosion, and hot

spots.

(8) For the burn cycle that follows the

inspection, document that the thermal

oxidizer is operating properly and make

any necessary adjustments.

(9) Generally observe whether the

equipment is maintained in good

operating condition.

(10) Complete all necessary repairs as

soon as practicable.

(c) You must establish procedures for

responding to operating parameter

excursions. At a minimum, the

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(3) of this section must include:

(1) Procedures for determining the

cause of the operating parameter

excursion.

(2) Actions for correcting the

excursion and returning the operating

parameters to the allowable ranges or

limits.

(3) Procedures for recording the times

that the excursion began and ended, and

corrective actions were initiated and

completed.

(d) Your plan must specify the

recordkeeping procedures to document

compliance with the emissions and

operating standards. Table 1 of this

subpart establishes the minimum

recordkeeping requirements.

§ 63.2988 How do I get my operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

approved?

You must obtain approval for your

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

plan. The steps in paragraphs (a) and (b)

of this section are required to obtain

approval of your plan:

(a) You must submit a draft plan to

the Administrator for approval 60 days

before conducting the performance tests

required in § 63.2991.

(b) Within 60 days after conducting

the performance tests required in

§ 63.2991, you must submit the final

plan, including the results of the

performance tests, to the Administrator

for approval. In addition, you must

submit the parameter levels or ranges to

the permit Agency for approval.

§ 63.2989 How do I change my operation,

maintenance and monitoring plan?

Changes to your operation,

maintenance and monitoring plan

require the approval of the

Administrator.

(a) If you are revising the ranges or

limits established for your operating

standards, you must meet the

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (4) of this section:

(1) Submit a request to and obtain

approval from the Administrator to

conduct a performance test to revise

your operating standard ranges or limits.

(2) After you receive approval from

the Administrator, conduct a

performance test to demonstrate that

compliance with the emissions

standards can be achieved at the revised

operating conditions.

(3) Submit the performance test

results and the revised operating,

maintenance, and monitoring plan to

the Administrator for approval.

(4) Pending Administrator approval of

the revised operating, maintenance, and

monitoring plan, you must comply with

the provisions of your approved plan.

(b) If you are revising an aspect of the

plan that does not require an additional

performance test, for example,

maintenance procedures, you must

submit only a final plan to the

Administrator for approval. Pending the

Administrator’s approval of the changes,

you must comply with the provisions of

your approved plan.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34293

§ 63.2990 Can I conduct short-term

experimental production runs that cause

parameters to deviate from operating

standards?

With the approval of the

Administrator, you may conduct shortterm experimental production runs

during which your operating parameters

deviate from the limits or ranges in your

operating standards. Experimental runs

may include, but are not limited to, runs

using resin with a higher freeformaldehyde content than specified in

the operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan, or using experimental

pollution prevention techniques. To

conduct a short-term experimental

production run, you must complete the

requirements in paragraphs (a) and

(b)(1) through (6) of this section:

(a) Submit an application to the

Administrator for approval at least 30

days before you conduct the test run.

(b) Prepare an application. Your

application must include:

(1) The purpose of the experimental

run.

(2) Identification of the affected line.

(3) An explanation of how the

operating parameters will deviate from

the previously approved ranges and

limits.

(4) The duration of the experimental

run.

(5) The date and time of the

experimental run.

(6) A description of any emission

testing to be performed during the

experimental run.

Performance Test Requirements

§ 63.2991 When must I conduct

performance tests?

You must conduct performance tests

for each drying and curing oven subject

to this subpart under the circumstances

listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section:

(a) Initially. You must conduct an

initial performance test according to the

dates specified in § 63.7. This

performance test is used to demonstrate

initial compliance and establish

operating parameter limits and ranges to

be used to demonstrate continuous

compliance with the emission

standards.

(b) Every 5 Years. You must conduct

a performance test every 5 years as part

of renewing your 40 CFR part 70

operating permit.

(c) To change your operation,

maintenance and monitoring plan. You

must conduct a performance test

according to the requirements specified

in § 63.2989.

§ 63.2992 How do I conduct a performance

test?

(a) You must verify the performance

of monitoring equipment as specified in

§ 63.2994.

(b) You must conduct the

performance test according to the

procedures in § 63.7.

(c) You must conduct the performance

test under the conditions listed in

paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this

section:

(1) The resin must have the highest

specified free-formaldehyde content that

will be used.

(2) The binder formulation must have

the highest urea formaldehyde content

of all formulations that will be used.

(3) The resin used must have the

highest UF resin solids content of all

resins that will be used.

(4) The product made must have the

highest UF resin solids content per ton

of product of all products that will be

manufactured.

(5) The product made must have the

highest loss-on-ignition of all products

that will be manufactured.

(6) You must operate at the maximum

feasible production rate for the specific

product.

(d) During the test, you must monitor

and record the operating parameters that

you will use to demonstrate continuous

compliance after the test. These

parameters are listed in table 1 of this

subpart.

§ 63.2993 What test methods must I use in

conducting performance tests?

(a) EPA Reference Method 1 (40 CFR

part 60, appendix A) for selecting the

sampling port location and the number

of sampling ports.

(b) EPA Reference Method 2 (40 CFR

part 60, appendix A) for measuring the

volumetric flow rate.

(c) EPA Reference Method 316 (40

CFR part 60, appendix A) for measuring

the concentration of formaldehyde.

(d) The method contained in

appendix A of this subpart for

determining the free-formaldehyde resin

solids content or the resin purchase

specification and the vendor

specification sheet for each resin lot.

(e) The method in appendix B of this

subpart for determining product loss-onignition.

§ 63.2994 How do I verify the performance

of monitoring equipment?

Before conducting the performance

test, you must take the steps listed in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:

(a) Install and calibrate all process

equipment, control devices, and

monitoring equipment.

(b) Conduct a performance evaluation

of the continuous monitoring system

(CMS) according to § 63.8(e) which

specifies the general requirements and

requirements for notifications, the sitespecific performance evaluation plan,

conduct of the performance evaluation,

and reporting of performance evaluation

results.

(c) If you use a thermal oxidizer, the

temperature monitoring device must

meet the performance and equipment

specifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1)

through (3) of this section:

(1) The temperature monitoring

device must be installed at the exit of

the combustion zone of each thermal

oxidizer.

(2) The recorder response range must

include zero and 1.5 times the average

temperature required in § 63.2984(a)(1).

(3) The measurement method or

reference method for calibration must be

a National Institute of Standards and

Technology calibrated reference

thermocouple-potentiometer system or

an alternate reference subject to the

approval of the Administrator.

§ 63.2995 What equations must I use to

determine compliance?

(a) Percent reduction for

formaldehyde. To determine

compliance with the percent reduction

formaldehyde emission standard, use

equation 1 as follows:

E

M M

M f

i o

i

= − × 100 (Eq. 1)

Where:

Ef=Formaldehyde control efficiency,

percent.

Mi=Mass flow rate of formaldehyde

entering the control device,

kilograms (pounds) per hour.

Mo=Mass flow rate of formaldehyde

exiting the control device,

kilograms (pounds) per hour.

(b) Formaldehyde mass emissions

rate. To determine compliance with the

kilogram per megagram (pound per ton)

formaldehyde emission standard, use

equation 2 as follows:

E M

P = (Eq. 2)

Where:

E=Formaldehyde mass emissions rate,

kilograms (pounds) of

formaldehyde per megagram (ton)

of fiberglass mat produced.

M=Formaldehyde mass emissions rate,

kilograms (pounds) per hour.

P=The wet-formed fiberglass mat

production rate during the

emissions sampling period,

including any material trimmed

from the final product, megagrams

(tons) per hour.

34294 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(c) Urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin

solids content. To determine the UF

resin solids content, use equation 3 as

follows:

%UF = × LOI A (Eq. 3)

Where:

%UF=Percent of urea-formaldehyde

resin solids of wet-formed fiberglass

mat produced, percent.

A=Ratio of the urea-formaldehyde resin

solids to the total solids content of

the binder formulation.

LOI=The loss-on-ignition of the wetformed fiberglass mat, percent.

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

§ 63.2996 What must I monitor?

You must monitor the parameters

listed in table 1 of this subpart and any

other parameters specified on your

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

plan. The parameters must be

monitored, at a minimum, at the

corresponding frequencies listed in

table 1 of this subpart.

§ 63.2997 What are the requirements for

monitoring devices?

(a) If formaldehyde emissions are

controlled using a thermal oxidizer, you

must meet the requirements in

paragraphs (a)(1) through (2) of this

section:

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and

operate a device to monitor and record

continuously the thermal oxidizer

temperature consistent with

manufacturer’s recommendations.

(2) Continuously monitor the thermal

oxidizer temperature and determine and

record average temperature in 15-

minute and 3-hour block averages. You

may determine the average temperature

more frequently than every 15 minutes

and every 3 hours, but not less

frequently.

(b) If formaldehyde emissions are

controlled by process modifications or a

control device other than a thermal

oxidizer, you must install, calibrate,

maintain, and operate devices to

monitor the parameters established in

your operation, maintenance, and

monitoring plan at the frequency

established in the plan.

§ 63.2998 What records must I maintain?

You must maintain records according

to the procedures of § 63.10. You are

required to maintain the following types

of records listed in paragraphs (a), (b),

(c), (d) and (e)(1) through (4) of this

section:

(a) All information required by the

applicable general provisions. Table 2 of

this subpart presents the applicable

requirements of the general provisions.

(b) The approved operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(c) Records of values of monitored

parameters listed in table 1 of this

subpart.

(d) Records of maintenance and

inspections performed on the control

devices.

(e) If an operating parameter

excursion occurs, you must record:

(1) The date, time, and duration of the

operating parameter excursion.

(2) A brief description of the cause of

the operating parameter excursion.

(3) The dates and times at which

corrective actions were initiated and

completed.

(4) A brief description of the

corrective actions taken to return the

parameter to the limit or to within the

range established in the operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

§ 63.2999 For how long must I maintain

records?

You must maintain each record

required by this subpart for 5 years. You

must maintain the most recent 2 years

of records at the facility. The remaining

3 years of records may be retained

offsite.

§ 63.3000 What reports must I submit?

(a) You must submit all reports and

notifications required by the applicable

general provisions. Table 2 of this

subpart presents the applicable

requirements of the general provisions.

(b) You must include in the

performance test reports required by

§ 63.10(d)(2) the values measured

during the performance test for

operating parameters listed in table 1 of

this subpart. For the thermal oxidizer

temperature, you must include 15-

minute averages and the average for the

three 1-hour test runs.

(c) You must submit to the

Administrator the startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan required in

§ 63.6(e)(3) within 180 days of the

compliance date. You must submit

reports of any revisions to the plan

semiannually. If no revisions are made

within a semiannual period, you are not

required to submit a report.

(d) If an operating parameter

excursion occurs, you must comply

with the reporting requirements for

excess emissions and parameter

monitoring exceedances in § 63.10(e)(3),

which specifies the reporting frequency,

excess emissions report content, and

summary report content. In addition to

the information required by

§ 63.10(e)(3), the report must contain the

information recorded as a result of the

operating parameter excursion,

including the dates and times when the

excursion commenced, corrective

actions were taken, and the excursion

ended and descriptions of the cause of

the excursion and of the corrective

actions taken. As required by

§ 63.10(e)(3), you must report quarterly

if an excursion occurs, semiannually if

no excursions occur.

Other Requirements and Information

§ 63.3001 What portions of the general

provisions apply to me?

You must comply with the

requirements of the general provisions

of subpart A of this part, as specified in

table 2 of this subpart.

§ 63.3002 Who enforces this subpart?

If the Administrator has delegated

authority to your State, the State is the

primary enforcement authority. If the

Administrator has not delegated

authority to your State, only EPA

enforces this subpart.

§ 63.3003 Incorporation by reference.

(a) The following material is

incorporated by reference in this

section: chapters 3 and 5 of ‘‘Industrial

Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended

Practice,’’ American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists,

(22nd edition, 1995). The incorporation

by reference of this material will be

approved by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register as of the date of

publication of the final rule according to

5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This

material is incorporated as it exists on

the date of approval and notice of any

change in the material will be published

in the Federal Register.

(b) The materials referenced in this

section are incorporated by reference

and are available for inspection at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capital Street NW, Suite 700, 7th Floor,

Washington, DC. The material is also

available for purchase from the

following address: Customer Service

Department, American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists

(ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive,

Cincinnati, OH 45240, telephone

number (513) 742–2020.

§ 63.3004 What definitions must I

understand?

In addition to the definitions in

§ 63.2, keywords used in this subpart

are defined as follows:

Binder application vacuum exhaust

means the exhaust from the vacuum

system used to remove excess resin

solution from the wet-formed fiberglass

mat before it enters the drying and

curing oven.

Binder formulation urea

formaldehyde content means the urea

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34295

formaldehyde concentration of the

binder, prepared from the ureaformaldehyde resin and water, as

applied to the glass fibers to form the

mat.

Drying and curing oven means the

process section that evaporates excess

moisture from a fiberglass mat and cures

the resin that binds the fibers.

Fiberglass mat production rate means

the weight of finished fiberglass mat

produced per hour of production

including any trim removed after the

binder is applied and before final

packaging.

Loss-on-ignition means the percentage

decrease in weight of fiberglass mat

measured before and after it has been

ignited to burn off the applied binder.

The loss-on-ignition is used to monitor

the weight percent of binder in

fiberglass mat.

Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat

manufacturing means the production of

a fiberglass mat by bonding glass fibers

to each other using a resin solution.

Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat

manufacturing is also referred to as wetformed fiberglass mat manufacturing.

Operating parameter excursion means

any time an operating parameter

deviates from the limit or range

established in the operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

Thermal oxidizer means an air

pollution control device that uses

controlled flame combustion inside a

combustion chamber to convert

combustible materials to

noncombustible gases.

§§ 63.3005—63.3079 [Reserved].

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART HHHH.—MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING AND RECORDKEEPING

You must monitor these parameters At this frequency And record for the monitored parameter

1. Thermal oxidizer temperature a ............................ Continuously ....................................... 15-minute and 3-hour block averages.

2. Other process or control device parameters

specified in your operation, maintenance and

monitoring (OMM) b plan.

As specified in your OMM .................. As specified in your OMM plan.

3. Resin free-formaldehyde content ......................... For each lot ......................................... The value for each lot used during the operating

day.

4. Binder formulation urea formaldehyde content .... For each product manufactured ......... The value for each product manufactured during

the operating day.

5. Urea-Formaldehyde (UF) resin solids content ..... For each product manufactured ......... The value for each product manufactured during

the operating day.

6. Product UF resin solids content per ton of product manufactured.For each product manufactured ......... The value for each product manufactured during

the operating day.

7. Loss-on-ignition .................................................... For each product manufactured ......... The value for each product manufactured during

the operating day.

8. Average hourly nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass

mat production rate c.

............................................................. The value for each product manufactured during

the operating day.

a Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions.

b Required if process modifications or a control device other than a thermal oxidizer is used to control emissions.

cAverage production rate is a parameter that must be monitored, however, it is not an operating standard.

TABLE 2 OF SUBPART HHHH.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART

HHHH

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH Explanation

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(a)(4) ................... General Applicability ...................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(5) .............................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

§ 63.1(a)(6)–(a)(8) ................... ......................................................................... Yes.

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

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(a)(14) ............... ......................................................................... Yes.

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

§ 63.1(c)(1) .............................. Applicability After Standard Established ........ Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(2) .............................. ......................................................................... Yes ................... Some plants may be area sources.

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

§ 63.1(c)(4)–(c)(5) .................... ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(d) .................................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

§ 63.1(e) .................................. Applicability of Permit Program ...................... Yes.

§ 63.2 ....................................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes ................... Additional definitions in § 63.3004.

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

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(a)(3) ................... Prohibited Activities ........................................ Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(4) .............................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

§ 63.4(a)(5) .............................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(b)–(c) ............................ Circumvention/Severability ............................. Yes.

§ 63.5(a) .................................. Construction/Reconstruction .......................... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(1) .............................. Existing/Constructed/Reconstruction ............. Yes.

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

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(b)(6) ................... ......................................................................... Yes.

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

§ 63.5(d) .................................. Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

§ 63.5(e) .................................. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ....... Yes.

§ 63.5(f) ................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction

Based on State Review.

Yes.

34296 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2 OF SUBPART HHHH.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART

HHHH—Continued

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH Explanation

§ 63.6(a) .................................. Compliance with Standards and Maintenance—Applicability.Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(b)(5) ................... New and Reconstructed Sources—Dates ..... Yes.

§ 63.6(b)(6) .............................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(b)(7) .............................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(c)(2) .................... Existing Sources Dates .................................. Yes ................... § 63.2985 specifies dates.

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

§ 63.6(c)(5) .............................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(d) .................................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(e) .................................. Operation and Maintenance Requirements ... Yes ................... §§ 63.2984 and 63.2987 specify additional

requirements

§ 63.6(f) ................................... Compliance with Emission Standards ........... Yes.

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

§ 63.6(h) .................................. Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emissions

Standards.

No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.6(i)(1)–(i)(14) .................... Extension of Compliance ............................... Yes.

§ 63.6(i)(15) ............................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(i)(16) ............................. ......................................................................... Yes.

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

§ 63.7(a) .................................. Performance Test Requirements—Applicability and Dates.Yes.

§ 63.7(b) .................................. Notification of Performance Test ................... Yes.

§ 63.7(c) ................................... Quality Assurance Program/Test Plan ........... Yes.

§ 63.7(d) .................................. Testing Facilities ............................................ Yes.

§ 63.7(e) .................................. Conduct of Tests ............................................ Yes ................... §§ 63.2991—63.2994 specify additional requirements.

§ 63.7(f) ................................... Alternative Test Method ................................. Yes ................... EPA retains approval authority.

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

§ 63.7(h) .................................. Waiver of Tests .............................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(a)(2) ................... Monitoring Requirements—Applicability ........ Yes.

§ 63.8(a)(3) .............................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

§ 63.8(a)(4) .............................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(b) .................................. Conduct of Monitoring .................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)–(c)(3) .................... Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Operation and Maintenance.Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(4) .............................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(5) .............................. ......................................................................... No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.8(c)(6)–(c)(8) .................... ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(d) .................................. Quality Control ............................................... Yes.

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

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(f)(5) ..................... Alternative Monitoring Method ....................... Yes.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ............ No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not require the use of

continuous emissions monitoring systems

(CEMS).

§ 63.8(g)(1) .............................. Data Reduction .............................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(g)(2) .............................. Data Reduction .............................................. No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not require the use of

CEMS or continuous opacity monitoring

systems (COMS).

§ 63.8(g)(3)–(g)(5) ................... Data Reduction .............................................. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

§ 63.9(f) ................................... Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.9(g)(1) .............................. Additional CMS Notifications .......................... Yes.

§ 63.9(g)(2) and (g)(3) ............. ......................................................................... No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not require the use of

COMS or CEMS.

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

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

§ 63.9(h)(5)–(h)(6) ................... ......................................................................... Yes.

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

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

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

§ 63.10(b) ................................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Yes ................... § 63.2998 includes additional requirements.

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

§ 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4) .................. ......................................................................... No ..................... [Reserved].

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34297

TABLE 2 OF SUBPART HHHH.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART

HHHH—Continued

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH Explanation

§ 63.10(c)(5)–(c)(8) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

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

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(c)(15) .............. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(1) ............................ General Reporting Requirements .................. Yes ................... § 63.3000 includes additional requirements.

§ 63.10(d)(2) ............................ Performance Test Results ............................. Yes ................... § 63.3000 includes additional requirements.

§ 63.10(d)(3) ............................ Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations ... No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.10(d)(4)–(d)(5) ................. Progress Reports/Startup, Shutdown, and

Malfunction Reports.

Yes.

§ 63.10(e)(1) ............................ Additional CMS Reports-General ................... No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not require CEMS.

§ 63.10(e)(2) ............................ Reporting results of CMS performance evaluations.Yes.

§ 63.10(e)(3) ............................ Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports.Yes.

§ 63.10(e)(4) ............................ COMS Data Reports ...................................... No ..................... Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or

visible emission standards.

§ 63.10(f) ................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver .................. Yes.

§ 63.11 ..................................... Control Device Requirements—Applicability No ..................... Facilities subject to subpart HHHH do not

use flares as control devices.

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

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

§ 63.14 ..................................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ No.

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

Appendix A to Subpart HHHH to Part

63—Method for Determining FreeFormaldehyde in Urea-Formaldehyde

Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced &

Cooled)

1.0 Scope

This procedure corresponds to the Housing

and Urban Development method of

determining free-formaldehyde in ureaformaldehyde resins. This method applies to

samples that decompose to yield

formaldehyde under the conditions of other

free-formaldehyde methods. The primary use

is for urea-formaldehyde resins.

2.0 Part A—Testing Resins

Formaldehyde will react with sodium

sulfite to form the sulfite addition products

and liberate sodium hydroxide (NaOH);

however, at room temperature, the methylol

groups present will also react to liberate

NaOH. Titrate at 0 degrees Celsius (°C) to

minimize the reaction of the methylol

groups.

2.1 Apparatus Required.

2.1.1 Ice crusher.

2.1.2 One 100-milliliter (mL) graduated

cylinder.

2.1.3 Three 400-mL beakers.

2.1.4 One 50-mL burette.

2.1.5 Analytical balance accurate to 0.1

milligrams (mg).

2.1.6 Magnetic stirrer.

2.1.7 Magnetic stirring bars.

2.1.8 Disposable pipettes.

2.1.9 Several 5-ounce (oz.) plastic cups.

2.1.10 Ice cube trays (small cubes).

2.2 Materials Required.

2.2.1 Ice cubes (made with distilled

water).

2.2.2 A solution of 1 molar (M) sodium

sulfite (Na2SO3) (63 grams (g) Na2SO3/500 mL

water (H2O) neutralized to thymolphthalein

endpoint).

2.2.3 Standardized 0.1 normal (N)

hydrochloric acid (Hcl).

2.2.4 Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g

thymolphthalein/199 g methanol).

2.2.5 Sodium chloride (NaCl) (reagent

grade).

2.2.6 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH).

2.3 Procedure.

2.3.1 Prepare sufficient quantity of

crushed ice for three determinations (two

trays of cubes).

2.3.2 Put 70 cubic centimeters (cc) of 1 M

Na2SO3 solution into a 400-mL beaker. Begin

stirring and add approximately 100 g of

crushed ice and 2 g of NaCl. Maintain 0 °C

during test, adding ice as necessary.

2.3.3 Add 10–15 drops of

thymolphthalein indicator to the chilled

solution. If the solution remains clear, add

0.1 N NaOH until the solution turns blue;

then add 0.1 N HCl back to the colorless

endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon

adding the indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the

colorless endpoint.

2.3.4 On the analytical balance,

accurately weigh the amount of resin

indicated under the ‘‘Resin Sample Size’’

chart (see below) as follows.

RESIN SAMPLE SIZE

Approximate free HCHO

Sample

weight

(grams)

<0.5% ............................................. 10

0.5—1.0% ....................................... 5

1.0—3.0% ....................................... 2

>3.0% ............................................. 1

2.3.4.1 Pour about 1 inch of resin into a

5 oz. plastic cup.

2.3.4.2 Determine the gross weight of the

cup, resin, and disposable pipette (with the

narrow tip broken off) fitted with a small

rubber bulb.

2.3.4.3 Pipette out the desired amount of

resin into the stirring, chilled solution

(approximately 1.5 to 2 g per pipette-full).

2.3.4.4 Quickly reweigh the cup, resin,

and pipette with the bulb.

2.3.4.5 The resultant weight loss equals

the grams of resin being tested.

2.3.5 Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1

N HCl to the colorless endpoint described in

Step 3 (2.3.3).

2.3.6 Repeat the test in triplicate.

2.4 Calculation.

2.4.1 The percent free-formaldehyde

(%HCHO) is calculated as follows:

%HCHO = (mL 0.1 N HCl) (N of Acid) (3.003)

Weight of Sample

34298 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2.4.2 Compute the average percent freeformaldehyde of the three tests. Note: If the

results of the three tests are not within a

range of ±0.5 percent or if the average of the

three tests does not meet expected limits,

carry out Part B and then repeat Part A.

3.0 Part B—Standard Check

Part B ensures that test reagents used in

determining percent free-formaldehyde in

urea-formaldehyde resins are of proper

concentration and that operator technique is

correct. Should any doubts arise in either of

these areas, the formaldehyde standard

solution test should be carried out.

3.1 Preparation and Standardization of a

1 Percent Formalin Solution.

Prepare a solution containing

approximately 1 percent formaldehyde from

a stock 37 percent formalin solution.

Standardize the prepared solution by titrating

the hydroxyl ions resulting from the

formation of the formaldehyde bisulfite

complex.

3.2 Apparatus Required.

Note: All reagents must be American

Chemical Society analytical reagent grade or

better.

3.2.1 One 1-liter (L) volumetric flask

(class A).

3.2.2 One 250-mL volumetric flask (class

A).

3.2.3 One 250-mL beaker.

3.2.4 One 100-mL pipette (class A).

3.2.5 One 10-mL pipette (class A).

3.2.6 One 50-mL graduated cylinder

(class A).

3.2.7 A pH meter, standardized using pH

7 and pH 10 buffers.

3.2.8 Magnetic stirrer.

3.2.9 Magnetic stirring bars.

3.2.10 Several 5-oz. plastic cups.

3.2.11 Disposal pippettes.

3.2.12 Ice cube trays (small cubes).

3.3 Materials Required.

3.3.1 A solution of 37 percent formalin.

3.3.2 Anhydrous Na2SO3.

3.3.3 Distilled water.

3.3.4 Standardized 0.100 N Hcl.

3.3.5 Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g

thymolphthalein/199 g methanol).

3.4 Preparation of Solutions and

Reagents.

3.4.1 Formaldehyde Standard Solution

(approximately 1 percent). Measure, using a

graduated cylinder, 27.0 mL of analytical

reagent 37 percent formalin solution into a 1-

L volumetric flask. Fill the flask to volume

with distilled water.

Note: You must standardize this solution

as described in section 3.5. This solution is

stable for 3 months.

3.4.2 Sodium Sulfite Solution 1.0 M

(used for standardization of Formaldehyde

Standard Solution). Quantitatively transfer,

using distilled water as the transfer solvent,

31.50 g of anhydrous Na2SO3 into a 250-mL

volumetric flask. Dissolve in approximately

100 ml of distilled water and fill to volume.

Note: You must prepare this solution daily,

but the calibration of the Formaldehyde

Standard Solution needs to be done only

once.

3.4.3 Hydrochloric Acid Standard

Solution 0.100 M. This reagent should be

readily available as a primary standard that

only needs to be diluted.

3.5 Standardization.

3.5.1 Standardization of Formaldehyde

Standard Solution.

3.5.1.1 Pipette 100.0 mL of 1 M sodium

sulfite into a stirred 250-mL beaker.

3.5.1.2 Using a standardized pH meter,

measure and record the pH. The pH should

be around 10. It is not essential the pH be

10; however, it is essential that the value be

accurately recorded.

3.5.1.3 To the stirring Na2SO3 solution,

pipette in 10.0 mL of Formaldehyde Standard

Solution. The pH should rise sharply to

about 12.

3.5.1.4 Using the pH meter as a

continuous monitor, titrate the solution back

to the original exact pH using 0.100 N HCl.

Record the milliliters of HCl used as titrant.

Note: Approximately 30 to 35 mL of HCl

will be required.

3.5.1.5 Calculate the concentration of the

Formaldehyde Standard Solution using the

equation as follows:

%HCHO = (mL HCl) (N HCl) (3.003)

mL sample

3.6 Procedure.

3.6.1 Prepare a sufficient quantity of

crushed ice for three determinations (two

trays of cubes).

3.6.2 Put 70 cc of 1 M Na2SO3 solution

into a 400-mL beaker. Begin stirring and add

approximately 100 g of crushed ice and 2 g

NaCl. Maintain 0 °C during the test, adding

ice as necessary.

3.6.3 Add 10–15 drops of

thymolphthalein indicator to the chilled

solution. If the solution remains clear, add

0.1 N NaOH until the solution turns blue;

then add 0.1 N HCl back to the colorless

endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon

adding the indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the

colorless endpoint.

3.6.4 On the analytical balance,

accurately weigh a sample of Formaldehyde

Standard Solution as follows.

3.6.4.1 Pour about 0.5 inches of

Formaldehyde Standard Solution into a 5-oz.

plastic cup.

3.6.4.2 Determine the gross weight of the

cup, Formaldehyde Standard Solution, and a

disposable pipette fitted with a small rubber

bulb.

3.6.4.3 Pipette approximately 5 g of the

Formaldehyde Standard Solution into the

stirring, chilled Na2SO3 solution.

3.6.4.4 Quickly reweigh the cup,

Formaldehyde Standard Solution, and

pipette with the bulb.

3.6.4.5 The resultant weight loss equals

the grams of Formaldehyde Standard

Solution being tested.

3.6.5 Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1

N HCl to the colorless endpoint in Step 3

(3.6.3).

3.6.6 Repeat the test in triplicate.

3.7 Calculation for Formaldehyde

Standard Solution.

3.7.1 The percent free-formaldehyde (%

HCHO) is calculated as follows:

%HCHO = (mL 0.1 N HCl) (N Acid) (3.003)

Weight of Formaldehyde Standard Solution

3.7.2 The range of the results of three

tests should be no more than ±5 percent of

the actual Formaldehyde Standard Solution

concentration. Report results to two decimal

places.

3.8 Reference.

West Coast Adhesive Manufacturers Trade

Association Test 10.1.

Appendix B to Subpart HHHH to Part

63—Method for the Determination of

Loss-on-Ignition

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this test is to determine the

loss-on-ignition (LOI) of wet-formed

fiberglass mat.

2.0 Equipment

2.1 Scale sensitive to 0.001 gram (g).

2.2 Drying oven equipped with a means

of constant temperature regulation and

mechanical air convection.

2.3 Furnace designed to heat to at least

625 °C (1,157 °F) and controllable to ±25 °C

(±45 °F).

2.4 Crucible, high form, 250 milliliter

(mL).

2.5 Desiccator.

2.6 Pan balance (see Note 2 in 4.9)

3.0 Sample Collection Procedure

3.1 Obtain a sample of mat in accordance

with Technical Association of the Pulp and

Paper Industry (TAPPI) method 1007

‘‘Sample Location.’’

3.2 Use a 5-to 10-g sample cut into pieces

small enough to fit into the crucible.

3.3 Place the sample in the crucible.

(Note 1: To test without the use of a crucible,

see Note 2 after Section 4.8.)

3.4 Condition the sample in the furnace

set at 105 ± 3 °C (221 ± 9 °F) for 5 minutes

± 30 seconds.

4.0 Procedure

4.1 Condition each sample by drying for

5 minutes ± 30 seconds at 105 ± 3 °C (22 ±

5 °F).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34299

4.2 Remove the test sample from the

furnace and cool in the desiccator for 30

minutes in the standard atmosphere for

testing glass textiles.

4.3 Place the empty crucible in the

furnace at 625 ± 25 °C (1,157 ± 45 °F). After

30 minutes, remove and cool the crucible in

the standard atmosphere (TAPPI method

1008) for 30 minutes.

4.4 Identify each crucible with respect to

each test sample of mat.

4.5 Weigh the empty crucible to the

nearest 0.001 g. Record this weight as the tare

mass, T.

4.6 Place the test sample in the crucible

and weigh to the nearest 0.001 g. Record this

weight as the initial mass, A.

4.7 Place the test sample and crucible in

the furnace and ignite at 625 ± 25 °C (1,157

± 45 °F).

4.8 After ignition for at least 30 minutes,

remove the test sample and crucible from the

furnace and cool in the desiccator for 30

minutes in the standard atmosphere (TAPPI

method 1008).

4.9 Remove each crucible, and test each

sample separately from the desiccator, and

immediately weigh each sample to the

nearest 0.001 g. Record this weight as the

ignited mass, B. (Note 2: When it is known

that no ash residue separates from the test

sample during the weighing and igniting

processes, you may weigh the sample

separately without the crucible. When this

occurs, the tare mass (T) equals zero. With

appropriate care, you can dry and weigh a

single piece of mat and place with tongs into

the ignition oven on appropriate refractory

supports. When the ignition time is over,

remove the sample as an intact fragile web

and weigh it directly on a pan balance.)

5.0 Calculation

5.1 Calculate the LOI for each sample as

follows:

% LOI = 100 × (A¥B)/(A¥T)

Where:

A = initial mass of crucible and sample

before ignition (g);

B = mass of crucible and glass residue after

ignition (g); and

T = tare mass of crucible, (g) (see Note 2).

5.2 Report the percent LOI of the glass mat

to the nearest 0.1 percent.

6.0 Precision

The repeatability of this test method for

measurements on adjacent specimens from

the same sample of mat is better than 1

percent.

[FR Doc. 00–12788 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P