Vol. 78 Monday, 

No. 72 April 15, 2013 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gas-Fired Melting Furnaces 

Located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22370 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9682–8] 

RIN 2060–AQ90 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral 

Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing; National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Gas-Fired Melting Furnaces 

Located at Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Area Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

chromium and particulate matter (for 

metals) standards for wool fiberglass 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area 

sources and adds these sources to the 

category list in the Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy. It also proposes amendments 

to the existing major source rules for 

Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass, 

supplementing the rule proposed on 

November 25, 2011. The proposed area 

source standards for the gas-fired glassmelting furnaces used to make wool 

fiberglass would increase the level of 

environmental protection. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 30, 2013. If anyone 

contacts the EPA requesting a public 

hearing by April 22, 2013, we will hold 

a public hearing on May 6, 2013. Under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget receives a copy of your 

comments on or before May 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on 

the proposed wool fiberglass area source 

rule and the major source RTR 

amendments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042, or 

the mineral wool RTR amendments, 

identified by EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1041, by one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1041 or EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1041 or EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1042. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 or 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attn: Desk 

Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20004, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 or EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments on 

the Mineral Wool RTR to Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and 

direct your comments on the Wool 

Fiberglass RTR and proposed area 

source rule to Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–1042. The EPA’s policy 

is that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change to http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: The EPA has established 

dockets for these rulemakings under 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1041 (Mineral Wool Production) 

and EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 (Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing). All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about these proposed actions, 

contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

04), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

(919) 541–5167; fax number: (919) 541– 

3207; and email address: 

fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the NESHAP to a particular entity, 

contact Scott Throwe, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, U.S. EPA Headquarters Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Mail Code: 2227A, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–7013; fax number: 

(202) 564–0050; email address: 

throwe.scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO Carbon monoxide 

COS Carbonyl sulfide 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESP electrostatic precipitators 

FA flame attenuation 

GP General Provisions 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22371 

HCl Hydrogen chloride 

HF Hydrogen fluoride 

HI Hazard Index 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

lb/ton pounds per ton 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NaOH Sodium hydroxide 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RS rotary spin 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

tpy tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

D. When will a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information for Proposed Area 

Source Standards 

A. What is the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category? 

B. What are the HAP-emitting processes in 

wool fiberglass manufacturing at area 

and major sources? 

C. What is the regulatory history for wool 

fiberglass manufacturing? 

D. What is the authority for the 

development of NESHAP for area 

sources? 

E. What sources did EPA look to in 

assessing GACT? 

F. Upon what set of data are the limits for 

glass-melting furnaces located at area 

sources based? 

III. What are the proposed requirements for 

glass-melting furnaces located at area 

sources? 

A. What are the proposed applicability 

requirements? 

B. What are the proposed emission limits 

for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

located at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

area sources? 

C. What are the proposed measurement 

methods, monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for glassmelting furnaces located at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing area sources? 

D. What are the proposed decisions and 

actions related to startup, shutdown and 

malfunction provisions? 

IV. How did we develop the proposed 

standards for glass-melting furnaces 

located at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

area sources? 

A. How did the EPA select the emissions 

sources and pollutants to regulate? 

B. How did the EPA select the format for 

the proposed rule for glass-melting 

furnaces located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources? 

C. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed emission standards for glassmelting furnaces located at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing area sources? 

D. How did the EPA determine the 

compliance and monitoring 

requirements for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area sources proposed 

rule? 

E. How did the EPA determine compliance 

dates for the proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area sources rule? 

F. How did the EPA determine 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area sources proposed 

rule? 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Area Source Rule 

A. What are the air impacts for the 

proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

area source rule? 

B. What are the cost impacts for the 

proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

area source rule? 

C. What are the non-air quality health, 

environmental and energy impacts for 

the proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area source rule? 

D. What are the economic impacts of the 

proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

area source rule? 

VI. What are the proposed changes to Mineral 

Wool Production (Subpart DDD) and 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart 

NNN) major source rules? 

A. Subpart DDD—Mineral Wool 

Production Major Source Rule 

B. Subpart NNN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Major Source Rule 

C. Revisions to Startup, Shutdown and 

Malfunction Provisions 

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to 

Mineral Wool Production (Subpart DDD) 

and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

(Subpart NNN) Major Source Rules 

A. Subpart DDD—Mineral Wool 

Production Major Source Rule 

B. Subpart NNN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Major Source Rule 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 below. 

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

Source category NESHAP NAICS code 1

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

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

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

Table 1 is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this proposed action for the 

source categories listed. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected, 

you should examine the applicability 

criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this NESHAP, please 

contact the appropriate person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the worldwide web through the 

EPA’s TTN. Following signature, a copy 

of the proposed action will be posted on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22372 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed and promulgated rules 

at the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.html. The 

TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. Additional 

information is available on the RTR Web 

page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information 

includes source category descriptions 

and detailed emissions and other data 

that were used as inputs to the proposed 

rule development. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM clearly indicating that 

it does not contain CBI. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI only to the following address: 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 (Wool 

Fiberglass). 

D. When will a public hearing occur? 

If a public hearing is requested by 

April 22, 2013, it will be held on May 

6, 2013, at the EPA’s Research Triangle 

Park Campus room C113, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. The hearing will 

convene at 1 p.m. (Eastern Standard 

Time) and end at 5 p.m. (Eastern 

Standard Time). Please contact Pamela 

Garrett at (919) (541–7966) or at 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request a 

hearing, to determine if a hearing will 

be held and to register to speak at the 

hearing, if one is held. If a hearing is 

requested, the last day to pre-register in 

advance to speak at the hearing will be 

Wednesday, May 1, 2013. Additionally, 

requests to speak will be taken the day 

of the hearing at the hearing registration 

desk, although preferences on speaking 

times may not be able to be fulfilled. If 

you require the service of a translator or 

special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. If no one contacts 

the EPA requesting a public hearing to 

be held concerning this proposed rule 

by April 22, 2013 a public hearing will 

not take place. 

If a hearing is not requested by April 

22, 2013 one will not be held. If a 

hearing is held it will provide interested 

parties the opportunity to present data, 

views or arguments concerning the 

proposed action. The EPA will make 

every effort to accommodate all speakers 

who arrive and register. Because this 

hearing, if held, will be at a U.S. 

governmental facility, individuals 

planning to attend the hearing should be 

prepared to show valid picture 

identification to the security staff in 

order to gain access to the meeting 

room. In addition, you will need to 

obtain a property pass for any personal 

belongings you bring with you. Upon 

leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to 

the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may 

only be used outside of the building and 

demonstrations will not be allowed on 

federal property for security reasons. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. If a hearing is held 

on May 6, 2013, written comments on 

the proposed rule must be postmarked 

by June 5, 2013. Commenters should 

notify Ms. Garrett if they will need 

specific equipment, or if there are other 

special needs related to providing 

comments at the hearing. The EPA will 

provide equipment for commenters to 

show overhead slides or make 

computerized slide presentations if we 

receive special requests in advance. Oral 

testimony will be limited to 5 minutes 

for each commenter. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email or CD) or in 

hard copy form. Verbatim transcripts of 

the hearings and written statements will 

be included in the docket for the 

rulemaking. The EPA will make every 

effort to follow the schedule as closely 

as possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearing to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. Information regarding the 

hearing (including information as to 

whether or not one will be held) will be 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttnatw01/woolfib/woolfipg.html. Again, 

all requests for a public hearing to be 

held must be received by April 22, 2013. 

II. Background Information for 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What is the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category? 

In 1992, the EPA listed the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing major source 

category and defined that category to 

include any facility engaged in 

producing wool fiberglass from sand, 

feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous 

borax, boric acid or any other materials. 

In the wool fiberglass manufacturing 

process, molten glass is formed into 

fibers that are bonded with an organic 

resin to create a wool-like material that 

is used as thermal or acoustical 

insulation. The Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category includes, 

but is not limited to, the following 

processes: Glass-melting furnace, 

marble-forming, refining, fiber-forming, 

binder application, curing and cooling. 

Though the listing was for major 

sources, all of the manufacturing 

process steps described here are 

applicable to both major and area 

sources. The only difference is that area 

sources use a formulation for some or all 

of their binders that does not contain 

HAP, and, thus, emissions do not 

exceed the major source threshold. 

These changes to the bonded lines are 

independent of and occur downstream 

of the furnace. Also, furnaces located at 

major and area sources have the same 

emissions profiles. 

Wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities at major and area sources 

typically operate one or more 

manufacturing lines. Refined raw 

materials for the glass batch are 

weighed, mixed, and conveyed to the 

glass-melting furnace, which may be 

gas-fired, electric, oxygen-enriched or 

gas and electric combined. 

The glass-melting furnace is lined 

with refractory bricks, providing 

thermal insulation and corrosion 

protection. According to industry 

statements in product specification 

materials and in ICR responses 

regarding refractory composition and 

furnace design, these bricks may contain 

significant amounts (over 94 percent by 

weight) of chromium-containing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22373 

1See product specifications from Saint-Gobain 

Corporation (chromium refractory product line and 

SEFPRO) at saint-gobain.com and in the docket to 

this rule. 

compounds.1 Specifically, the 114 

responses, which were completed by all 

wool fiberglass companies, listed the 

chromium content of the refractory 

linings of the glass melting furnaces. 

The chromium content of the 

refractories in use at wool fiberglass 

furnaces ranged from 30–94 percent 

chromium compounds, with a 

chromium content of up to 68 percent 

(chromium by weight). The primary 

component of wool fiberglass is silica 

(quartz) sand, but it also includes 

varying quantities of feldspar, sodium 

sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, 

previously melted glass and many other 

materials. Previously melted glass in the 

form of marbles or crushed recycled 

glass (cullet) is a primary component in 

most batches. 

In the first step of wool fiberglass 

manufacturing, raw materials are 

introduced continuously or in batches 

on top of a bed of molten glass into 

glass-melting furnaces where they mix 

and dissolve at temperatures ranging 

from 2,700 °F to 3,100 °F (1,500 °C to 

1,700 °C), and are transformed by a 

series of chemical and thermal reactions 

to molten glass. 

In the second step of wool fiberglass 

manufacturing, fibers are formed using 

either of two methods: The rotary spin 

(RS) method or the flame attenuation 

(FA) method. In the RS process, 

centrifugal force causes molten glass to 

flow through small holes in the wall of 

a rapidly rotating cylinder. In the FA 

process, molten glass flows by gravity 

from a small glass-melting furnace, or 

pot, to form threads that are then 

attenuated (stretched to the point of 

breaking) with air and/or flame. 

After the fibers are formed, they are 

sprayed with a binder to hold the fibers 

together. Both major and area sources 

use binders. The bonded fibers are then 

collected as a mat on a moving 

conveyor. Binder compositions vary 

with product type. After application of 

the binder and formation of the mat, the 

conveyor carries the newly formed mat 

through an oven for curing of the 

thermosetting resin contained in the 

binder and then through a cooling 

section. Some products do not require 

curing and/or cooling and FA 

manufacturing lines do not have cooling 

processes. Low and high-temperature 

thermal oxidizers are used to control 

emissions of phenol, formaldehyde, and 

methanol from curing operations on 

bonded lines at major sources. 

B. What are the HAP-emitting processes 

in wool fiberglass manufacturing at area 

and major sources? 

Glass-melting furnaces emit metal 

HAP (chromium, cadmium, beryllium, 

manganese, nickel, lead and arsenic), 

which are present in the particulate 

emissions. Particulate emissions are 

caused by entrainment of dust from 

batch dumping and the combustion 

process and from melting of the raw 

mineral materials. In addition, 

emissions of chromium also result from 

entrainment of materials eroded from 

the refractory lining of the glass-melting 

furnace and the glass-melting furnace 

exhaust stack. Several HAP metals, 

including lead and arsenic, are released 

from the batch materials and from the 

use of contaminated cullet i.e., crushed 

recycled glass (64 FR 31695 (June 14, 

1999)). As shown in Table 2 below, the 

total metal emissions from all sources is 

about 1,800 pounds per year (1,300 from 

major sources and 500 from area 

sources), of which 620 pounds are 

chromium compounds. Area sources 

contribute approximately 80 pounds of 

chromium compounds; major sources 

contribute the balance of 540 pounds of 

chromium compounds. 

TABLE 2—TOTAL METALS AND CHROMIUM EMISSIONS BY FURNACE TYPE AND SOURCE, LB/YR

Number of furnaces Total metals emissions 

(lb/yr) 

Chromium emissions 

(lb/yr) 

Major Area Major Area Major Area 

Electric Furnaces ............................................................. 21 46 10 10 

Gas-Fired ......................................................................... 8 8 530 70 

Total .......................................................................... 29 54 760 420 540 80 

Glass-melting furnaces may be either 

gas-fired, electric, oxygen-enriched or a 

combination of gas and electric. About 

80 percent of the glass-melting furnaces 

used in the wool fiberglass industry are 

electric (e.g., steel shell or cold-top) and 

about 20 percent are gas-fired (e.g., air 

gas, recuperative air gas, or oxyfuel). 

Glass pull rates for glass-melting 

furnaces typically range from 20 to 240 

tons per day, but can go up to 435 tons 

per day. Emissions from glass-melting 

furnaces are typically controlled by 

baghouses or ESP. Electric glass-melting 

furnaces typically have low PM and 

metal HAP emissions without add-on 

controls as a result of their design. 

Operators of these units maintain a 

thick crust of raw materials on top of the 

molten glass, which impedes the release 

of heat and keeps the air temperature of 

the glass-melting furnace below 300 °F 

(120 °C). 

Glass-melting furnaces also emit acid 

gases (hydrofluoric and hydrochloric 

acid) that result from the presence of 

chlorides and fluorides in the raw 

materials. Total emissions of acid gases 

from both major and area sources are 24 

tons per year (about 19 tons from major 

sources and about 5 tons from area 

sources). 

The forming and binding step occurs 

at both area and major sources. 

Emissions from the forming and binding 

step include formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol. These emissions occur postfurnace, when the volatile components 

of the binder come in contact with the 

hot fibers. A portion of the binder 

components pass through the conveyor 

and into the control device (thermal 

oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer or scrubber). 

However, at area sources some or all of 

the binders used are formulated to 

contain no HAP. Though air emissions 

of non-HAP containing binders still 

occur, the overall emissions of HAP 

from binder application are either 

eliminated or significantly reduced (if 

some HAP containing binders are still 

used) to a level where the facility is not 

a major source. 

As explained in our 1997 major 

source MACT rulemaking (62 FR 

15229–530), exposure to the HAPs 

emitted by wool fiberglass 

manufacturing can cause reversible or 

irreversible health effects including 

carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous 

system, developmental, reproductive, 

and/or dermal health effects. However, 

chromium emissions from furnaces are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22374 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2From ‘‘Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment’’, 51 FR 33991–34003, September 24, 

1986. For more information on chromium’s 

inhalation carcinogenicity: http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0144.htm—Section II: Carcinogenicity 

Assessment for Lifetime Exposure. For more 

information on the support for the summary of the 

carcinogenicity of chromium in EPA’s Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS): http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0144tr.pdf. For the 

most recent guideline document for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessment: http://www.epa.gov/raf/ 

publications/pdfs/ 

CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3–25–05.PDF. 

3For example, in the response to comments 

document supporting the final major source 

NESHAP, EPA clarified the applicability of the rule. 

Specifically, EPA rejected a request to limit the rule 

to the manufacturing lines, noting that the 

commenter’s suggested revision ‘‘would alter the 

applicability of the rule’’ such that glass-melting 

furnaces would not be covered. Further, in response 

to the commenter’s suggested change of the 

definition of ‘‘wool fiberglass,’’ EPA responded that 

‘‘while the suggested change may help to clarify the 

EPA’s intent to cover only manufacturing lines 

producing bonded wool fiberglass products, it 

would create confusion over the rule’s coverage of 

glass-melting furnaces.’’ EPA stated: ‘‘Because the 

EPA’s intent is to regulate all glass-melting furnaces 

located at wool fiberglass plants that are major 

sources of HAP, and not just those melters that feed 

molten glass to manufacturing lines producing 

bonded wool fiberglass products, the EPA has 

decided to not modify the definition of ‘wool 

fiberglass’ by adding ‘bonded to the definition. The 

EPA believes that other definitions and the 

applicability section of the rule are clear on the 

EPA’s intent to regulate manufacturing lines that 

produce bonded products and not non-bonded 

products.’’ (Emphasis added). See Comments 2.2 

and 2.3 of the response to comment documents for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category, which can be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

not affected by the reformulation of the 

binder. Chromium emissions are of 

particular concern. The effects of 

inhaling chromium depend on whether 

the oxidation state of the metal is 

trivalent or hexavalent. Trivalent 

chromium is substantially less toxic 

than hexavalent chromium. Both types 

of chromium irritate the respiratory 

tract. Hexavalent chromium inhalation 

is associated with lung cancer, and EPA 

has classified it as a Class A known 

human carcinogen, per EPA’s 

classification system for the 

characterization of the overall weight of 

evidence for carcinogenicity.2

Here, we have a situation where the 

agency had listed and regulated metal 

HAP emissions from wool fiberglass 

furnaces as part of Subpart NNN, the 

major source MACT. As explained 

above, many of the area sources at issue 

were, in fact, subject to Subpart NNN, 

and were required to meet the PM limits 

(as a surrogate for metal HAP) in that 

rule. These sources are no longer subject 

to Subpart NNN because they no longer 

meet the definition of a ‘‘wool fiberglass 

facility,’’ since they do not use a phenolformaldehyde binder in their 

manufacturing lines. Recent data 

provided by industry confirm that the 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located 

at area sources emit urban metal HAP, 

including significant amounts of 

chromium. 

C. What is the regulatory history for 

wool fiberglass manufacturing? 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

requires the agency to list and 

promulgate NESHAP in order to control, 

reduce or otherwise limit the emissions 

of HAP from categories of major and 

area sources. Pursuant to the various 

specific listing requirements in section 

112(c), the agency listed 174 categories 

of major and area sources that would be 

subject to NESHAP (57 FR 31576, July 

16, 1992). The Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing major source category 

was on that list. 

In the 1992 listing notice, we 

provided source category descriptions 

and noted that the list, consistent with 

the statute, may be revised from time to 

time as additional information became 

available. The agency also noted the 

requirement to list area sources 

pursuant to the Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy under section 112(c) and (k). 

(See 57 FR 31582). 

We proposed the NESHAP for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major 

source category on March 31, 1997 (61 

FR15228). At proposal, we explained 

that we were aware of only three 

facilities that were area sources. We 

further explained that two glass-melting 

furnaces located at these area sources 

had MACT floor level controls. 40 CFR 

Part 63, Subpart NNN (62 FR 31695). 

The EPA promulgated the final 

NESHAP for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing major source category on 

June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695), and those 

requirements are codified at 40 CFR Part 

63, Subpart NNN. 

The requirements of the major source 

NESHAP apply to HAP emitted from the 

following new and existing sources at a 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facility: 

1. Glass-melting furnaces located at a 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facility; 

2. Rotary spin wool fiberglass 

manufacturing lines producing a 

bonded wool fiberglass building 

insulation product; and 

3. Flame attenuation wool fiberglass 

manufacturing lines producing a 

bonded pipe product and bonded heavy 

density product. (40 CFR 63.1380). 

With regard to the two manufacturing 

lines, rotary spin and flame attenuation, 

the major source NESHAP provides that 

a bonded product is wool fiberglass to 

which a phenol-formaldehyde binder 

has been applied. (40 CFR 63.1381). 

As explained previously, HAP 

emitted from glass-melting furnaces 

include acid gases and metals, such as 

chromium, cadmium, beryllium, 

manganese, nickel, lead and arsenic. 

Formaldehyde, phenol and methanol 

are the HAP emitted from forming, 

cooling and curing processes, which are 

the processes associated with the rotary 

spin and flame attenuation lines. 

The major source NESHAP set 

standards for PM (as a surrogate for nonHg metal HAP) to address emissions 

from glass-melting furnaces and 

formaldehyde (as a surrogate for phenol 

and methanol) to address emissions 

from the forming, cooling, and curing 

processes. (40 CFR 63.1382). Thus, the 

NESHAP regulates emissions from both 

glass-melting furnaces and the 

manufacturing lines. The record 

supporting the major source NESHAP 

(Subpart NNN) provides that regulation 

of PM, chromium and metal HAP 

emissions from the glass-melting 

furnaces would occur irrespective of 

whether the lines were producing a 

bonded product. The EPA did not 

intend to exempt any major sources or 

incentivize such sources to avoid MACT 

coverage by producing non-bonded 

products (i.e., wool fiberglass to which 

a phenol-formaldehyde binder was not 

applied). Rather the EPA contemplated 

that the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP would regulate emissions from 

both glass-melting furnaces and rotary 

spin and flame attenuation lines, the 

latter of which are part of the forming, 

curing and cooling process.3

The major source NESHAP, however, 

also defined the term ‘‘wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility’’ as ‘‘any facility 

manufacturing wool fiberglass on a 

rotary spin manufacturing line or on a 

flame attenuation manufacturing line.’’ 

(40 CFR 63.1381). As noted above, in 

order to have a rotary spin 

manufacturing line or a flame 

attenuation manufacturing line you 

must produce a bonded product, which 

is a product to which a phenolformaldehyde binder has been applied. 

Thus, a facility that does not use 

phenol-formaldehyde binders does not 

manufacture a bonded product, and 

therefore does not have a rotary spin 

manufacturing line or a flame 

attenuation manufacturing line as 

defined in the NESHAP. If the facility 

does not have a rotary spin 

manufacturing line or a flame 

attenuation manufacturing line it does 

not meet the definition of wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility and 

therefore, would no longer be subject to 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP. Thus, the wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility definition 

appears to be in tension with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22375 

4The determination provided, in pertinent part, 

‘‘Based on the definitions provided in section 

63.1381, EPA agrees that if the [rotary spin line 

located at the] JM Penbryn Plant is no longer using 

a phenol-formaldehyde binder, the facility no 

longer meets the definition of a wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility in Subpart NNN.’’ 

Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, Director for 

Compliance Assessment and Media Programs 

Division, Office of Compliance, USEPA to Karl 

Mangels, Air Compliance Branch, USEPA, Region 

II, (August 1, 2002)). EPA also agreed ‘‘that as a 

result of the switch to a non phenol-formaldehyde 

binder, the glass-melting furnace is not subject to 

Subpart NNN since it is no longer located at a wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility.’’ (Memorandum 

from Michael S. Alushin, Director for Compliance 

Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of 

Compliance, USEPA to Karl Mangels, Air 

Compliance Branch, USEPA, Region II, (August 1, 

2002)). 

5For EPA’s notice on the Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy, see 64 FR 38706, 38715–716 (July 19, 

1999.) 6EPA issued final area source standards in the 

following FR notices: 

applicability provision, (in 40 CFR 

63.1380, which is described above), to 

the extent the provision states that the 

requirements of the NESHAP apply to 

HAP emitted from the glass-melting 

furnaces located at a wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility (40 CFR 63.1380). 

As shown in a 2002 applicability 

determination for Johns Mansville (JM), 

the narrow definition of a wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility 

resulted in a determination that a rotary 

spin line that stopped making bonded 

products was no longer subject to 

Subpart NNN.4

However, the phase out of phenolformaldehyde binders does not reduce 

or otherwise change emissions from the 

glass-melting furnace. This is because 

the first step of wool fiberglass 

manufacturing at both major and area 

sources (i.e., where raw materials are 

introduced) occurs in the glass-melting 

furnace and as earlier explained total 

chromium compounds, arsenic, 

cadmium, beryllium, lead, manganese 

and nickel are some of the HAP emitted 

from glass-melting furnaces. These 

emissions are different from HAP 

emissions from the forming and bonding 

section of rotary spin and flame 

attenuation manufacturing lines; which 

as explained above are formaldehyde, 

phenol and methanol or none of these 

where a facility has phased out the use 

of phenol-formaldehyde binders. Thus, 

sources that no longer meet the 

definition of a wool fiberglass facility 

because they no longer use phenolformaldehyde binders on the rotary spin 

and flame attenuation lines are no 

longer subject to Subpart NNN. 

However, they still emit metal HAP 

from the glass-melting furnaces. These 

HAP include total chromium 

compounds, lead, arsenic, cadmium, 

beryllium, manganese and nickel, which 

are HAP that the EPA has identified 

under sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3) as 

part of the 30 urban HAP (the ‘‘urban 

HAP’’). 

On November 25, 2011, the EPA 

proposed revisions to the Mineral Wool 

and the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subparts DDD 

and NNN, respectively, to address the 

results of the technology review and 

residual risk review that the EPA is 

required to conduct under sections 

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

The limits in those proposed 

amendments apply to major sources, 

that is, sources emitting at least 10 tons 

per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per 

year of any combination of HAP. 

In the November 25, 2011 proposal, 

the agency noted that since 

promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP, 

sources had modified certain processes 

by using non-HAP binders instead of 

phenol-formaldehyde binders (76 FR 

72770). As noted above, a facility that 

no longer uses phenol-formaldehyde 

binders does not meet the definition of 

‘‘wool fiberglass facility’’ under Subpart 

NNN. Many sources that were subject to 

the major source NESHAP (Subpart 

NNN) have eliminated the use of 

phenol-formaldehyde binders and these 

sources now emit less than 10 tons per 

year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year 

of any combination of HAP. We 

understand that 20 of the existing 30 

wool fiberglass facilities have become 

area sources through the phase-out of 

phenol-formaldehyde in the binders. 

However, the glass-melting furnaces at 

these sources continue to emit 

chromium and other HAP metal 

compounds. As explained above, 

emissions from glass-melting furnaces 

are completely separate and 

independent from emissions from the 

bonding portion of the process. Further, 

while replacement of phenolformaldehyde binders with non-HAP 

binders is an environmentally 

responsible, or ’’green’’ choice within 

the wool fiberglass manufacturing 

industry, recent data from industry 

show that gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces specifically continue to emit 

chromium and other HAP metal 

compounds, and for furnaces located at 

area sources these emissions are not 

currently regulated pursuant to CAA 

section 112. 

While subpart NNN applies to wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities that 

are major sources, today’s proposed rule 

would apply to gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that are area 

sources (subpart NN). As explained 

below in section IV, we are listing gasfired glass-melting furnaces located at 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

that are area sources pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) of the CAA. 

D. What is the authority for the 

development of NESHAP for area 

sources? 

1. Authority Under Section 112(k) Area 

Source Program 

Sections 112(c)(3) and (k) of the CAA 

require the EPA to identify and list the 

area source categories that represent 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 urban 

air toxics associated with area sources 

and subject them to standards under the 

CAA (section 112(d)). Cross referencing 

section 112(c)(3), section 112(k)(3) 

requires the EPA to identify a list of at 

least 30 air toxics that pose the greatest 

potential health threat in urban areas 

(the ‘‘urban’’ HAP). Taken together, 

these requirements are known as the 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). 

These are the HAP that present the 

greatest threat to public health in the 

largest number of urban areas (section 

112(k)(3)(B)(i) of the Act). The EPA is 

also required to ‘‘assure that sources 

accounting for 90 percent or more of the 

30 identified hazardous air pollutants 

are subject to standards.’’ (Section 

112(k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 112(c)(3)). 

Under the Strategy, the EPA has 

developed standards to control toxic air 

pollutants from area sources. For the 

Strategy, the EPA identified a list of 33 

air toxics in the area source program 

under which a total of 68 area source 

categories were identified which 

represented 90 percent of the emissions 

of the 33 listed air toxics. Under the 

Strategy, EPA regulated these 68 source 

categories of urban HAP in 56 subparts 

of the Code of Federal Regulations.5 6

As noted above, section 

112(k)(3)(B)(ii) requires the EPA to 

‘‘assure that [area] sources accounting 

for 90 percent or more of the 30 

identified hazardous air pollutants [the 

30 urban HAP] are subject to 

standards.’’ (Emphasis added). Nothing 

in the CAA prevents the agency from 

going beyond the statutory minimum of 

90 percent. Indeed, to date, we have 

established emission standards for 

sources accounting for almost 100 

percent of area source emissions of 

certain urban HAP. For example, we 

have established emission standards for 

various source categories emitting 

dioxin, which is an urban HAP, and 

these categories represent 100 percent of 

area source dioxin emissions. 

To date, the agency has regulated 90 

percent of sources accounting for area 

source chromium, manganese, lead and 

nickel emissions, all of which are urban 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22376 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7See. ‘‘Technical Memorandum. Emission 

Standards for Meeting the 90 Percent Requirement 

under Section 112(c)(3) and Section 112(k)(3)(B) of 

the Clean Air Act’’ From Nathan E. Topham, 

Environmental Engineer, USEPA February 18, 2011. 

8For the listing notices of the Strategy, see 64 FR 

38705, July 19, 1999; 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 

67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, 

December 23, 2008; and 74 FR 30366, June 25, 

2009. 

9We have made several revisions to the section 

112(c)(3) list since its issuance: 67 FR 43112, June 

26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 

78637, December 23, 2008; 74 FR 30366, June 25, 

2009. 

10The EPA also considers the costs and economic 

impacts of available control technologies and 

management practices when determining whether 

to revise a standard pursuant to section 112(d)(6). 

HAP emitted by gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces, and 93 percent of sources 

accounting for cadmium emissions and 

99 percent for arsenic and beryllium 

emissions.7 Consistent with the 

authority provided in section 112(c)(3) 

and (k)(3)(B), the agency is listing and 

proposing emission standards for these 

urban metal HAP emissions from gasfired glass-melting furnaces located at 

area sources. With this regulation, 

pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B), the agency will have subjected 

additional sources to regulation for 

urban metal HAP, which is wholly 

consistent with the goals of the Strategy. 

Under the Strategy, we went above the 

90 percent when it was feasible to do 

so.8 For example, EPA subjected 99 

percent of sources of arsenic and 

beryllium compounds to regulation 

under the Strategy. We have no 

requirement to limit our regulation to 

the minimum of 90 percent of sources; 

we however must subject at least 90 

percent of the sources of the urban HAP 

to regulation under the strategy. 

As we are adding gas-fired glassmelting furnaces located at area sources 

to the source category list, we are also 

proposing standards for the category.9

See section III.B below regarding the 

proposed standards. 

2. Alternative Standards for Area 

Sources Under Section 112(d)(5) 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA 

may elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices by such sources 

to reduce emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants.’’ Additional information on 

generally available control technologies 

or management practices (GACT) is 

found in the Senate report on the 

legislation (Senate report Number 101– 

228, December 20, 1989), which 

describes GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. 

In setting GACT, we always look to 

the standards applicable to major 

sources in the same industrial sector to 

determine if the control technologies 

and management practices are 

transferable and generally available to 

area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, we may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category at issue. In this case, the 

control technologies and managment 

practices for major sources are 

transferable because major source glassmelting furnaces are no different than 

area source glass-melting furnaces. 

Finally, as we have already noted, in 

determining GACT for a particular area 

source category, we consider the costs 

and economic impacts of available 

control technologies and management 

practices on that category. 

GACT differs from MACT in that cost 

can be considered in the first instance 

when establishing a GACT standard. By 

contrast, when establishing MACT 

standards pursuant to section 112(d)(3), 

EPA must determine the average 

emission limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources and the emission limitation 

achieved by the best controlled similar 

source for new sources, without regard 

to cost. 

As explained in greater detail in 

section III.B below, we determined that 

GACT standards for area sources should 

be the same as the major source 

standards proposed for PM and 

chromium on November 25, 2011, 

pursuant to section 112(d)(6), based on 

the similarity between production 

processes, emission points, emissions, 

and control technologies that are 

characteristic of both major and area 

source wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities and considerations of cost.10

E. What sources did EPA look to in 

assessing GACT? 

As noted above, determining what 

constitutes GACT involves considering 

the control technologies and 

management practices that are generally 

available to the area sources in the 

source category. We also consider the 

standards applicable to major sources in 

the same industrial sector, which is 

particularly relevant here as the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. Given the above, it is 

appropriate to consider both major and 

area sources in assessing GACT. 

In order to identify all wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities we relied on the 

original listing of facilities from the 

1999 NESHAP, based on industry 

comments. Major sources are subject to 

Title V, and are identified in a database 

used for Title V permitting purposes. 

The agency used this Title V database to 

identify major sources in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category. There are currently 30 

facilities in this source category, of 

which 10 are major sources and 20 are 

area sources. Currently, area sources 

operate 54 glass-melting furnaces while 

major sources operate 29 glass-melting 

furnaces. We also note that the industry 

has provided information that some of 

the major sources have already filed 

permit modifications with the 

appropriate permitting agencies to 

become area sources, but the permitting 

agency has not yet acted on the request. 

F. Upon what set of data are the limits 

for glass-melting furnaces located at 

area sources based? 

At the time of the November 25, 2011, 

RTR proposal, the EPA had information 

that all glass-melting furnaces emit 

metal HAP in the form of particulate 

emissions. In addition, subsequent to 

the November 25, 2011, proposal, the 

EPA requested information through a 

section 114 information request 

regarding PM and chromium 

compounds that are either used in or 

emitted by glass-melting furnaces at 

facilities that engage in wool fiberglass 

manufacturing. The EPA has evaluated 

the responses and confirmed that over 

90 percent (15 out of 16) of gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces emit chromium 

compounds at measurable amounts. 

These data have been compiled with 

previously submitted industry source 

tests into a database for this source 

category and serve as the technical basis 

for this area source rulemaking. 

The EPA reviewed the entire set of 

data for the wool fiberglass 

manufacturing industry, which includes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22377 

11This is similar to our decision in the Portland 

Cement NESHAP (74 FR 21155, May 6, 2009), 

where we based the PM, mercury, and total 

hydrocarbon limits on all the kilns used by industry 

for which we had data because there were no 

differences between kilns located at major sources 

and those located at area sources. 12US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Industrial Technologies Program, Final 

Technical Report. ‘‘Compressive Creep and 

Thermophysical Performance of Refractory 

Materials’’. Oak Ridge National Laboratories. June 

2006. 13Oxygen-Enhanced Combustion, Baukal, Charles 

E., Jr. 1998. 

both major and area sources. We 

conducted QA/QC analyses to ensure 

data accuracy, identified the area 

sources and arrayed those data 

according to the magnitude of the 

emissions and control device. 

We considered whether to include all 

glass-melting furnaces in the set of data 

or only those glass-melting furnaces 

located at area sources. We concluded it 

was most reasonable to base the 

emission limit on the entire set of data, 

and not on a subset of area sources for 

the reasons described below. 

First, due to the definition of ‘‘wool 

fiberglass facility’’ in Subpart NNN, the 

set of area sources is constantly 

growing. When facilities change their 

status from a major source to an area 

source, they typically do so as a result 

of changes in their binder formulation, 

a process occurring downstream of the 

glass-melting furnace. In 2002, two out 

of 33 facilities were area sources; within 

10 years that number had increased 10- 

fold, and by December 2012, 20 out of 

30 had become area sources. The 

bonded lines are independent of glassmelting furnaces; the binder formulation 

change does not affect glass-melting 

furnace operations, limits or production. 

Second, the glass-melting furnaces in 

use when the facility is a major source 

are the same glass-melting furnaces 

operating in the same manner as when 

it becomes an area source. Because there 

is no difference between the glassmelting furnace operations at area 

sources and those at major sources, we 

found no reason to differentiate the 

glass-melting furnaces located at major 

sources from the furnaces located at area 

sources. 

Third, there is no definitive cut-off 

date to determine when facilities that 

are major sources become area sources. 

As discussed earlier, the industry is 

phasing out its use of phenolformaldehyde based binders, but each 

company/facility has its own schedule 

for the transition to non phenolformaldehyde binders. As explained 

earlier, because the HAP emissions 

resulting from the use of phenolformaldehyde binders place the facility 

in major source status (that is, the HAP 

emissions are at least 10 tpy of a single 

HAP or 25 tpy of a combination of 

HAP), when a facility discontinues the 

phenol-formaldehyde binder and begins 

use of a non-HAP binder, it becomes an 

area source, emitting less than major 

source levels. 

The limits we are proposing in today’s 

action are GACT limits, and are based 

on the ‘‘generally available control 

technologies or management practices 

by such sources to reduce emissions of 

HAP.’’ We note that this is the same 

data set on which technology review 

was based for the wool fiberglass RTR 

proposed rule.11 We therefore propose 

that the larger industry dataset, 

including glass-melting furnaces at both 

major and area wool fiberglass 

manufacturing sources, is the 

appropriate set on which to base the 

proposed GACT limits. 

III. What are the proposed 

requirements for glass-melting furnaces 

located at area sources? 

As previously discussed, we have 

determined the EPA’s intent in 

developing the 1999 Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP was to regulate 

metal HAP emissions from all glassmelting furnaces, but now many glassmelting furnaces are no longer regulated 

by the NESHAP. Based on industryprovided data, these glass-melting 

furnaces emit metal HAP. However, we 

have determined that gas-fired glassmelting furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities can emit higher 

levels of metal HAP, and also higher 

than expected levels of chromium than 

electric glass-melting furnaces. This is 

due to the use of high chromium 

refractories above the glass melt line, 

and use of these refractories is essential 

to obtain the desired glass-melting 

furnace life. Also, the industry has 

indicated that the current trend is to 

replace air gas glass-melting furnaces 

with oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces.12 13

Oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces have the 

highest potential for elevated chromium 

emissions as discussed further in 

section IV.A of this preamble. 

Accordingly, we believe it is 

appropriate to add gas-fired glassmelting furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that are located 

at area sources to the list of area sources 

regulated in the Urban Air Toxics 

Program. 

The following sections present the 

applicability requirements, emission 

limits, measurement methods, 

monitoring, notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements we are 

proposing for these area sources. The 

rationale for these requirements follows 

this section. 

A. What are the proposed applicability 

requirements? 

The proposed rule would apply to 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located 

at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities that are at area sources. Gasfired furnaces include, but are not 

limited to, oxyfuel, air gas and 

recuperative air gas glass-melting 

furnaces. 

We also considered having the limits 

apply only to glass-melting furnaces 

constructed using chromium in the 

refractory of the glass-melting furnace. 

However, we also learned from the 

section 114 responses that most wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnaces are 

constructed of refractory materials 

containing similar chromium content. 

The potential for chromium emissions is 

related more to the amount of high 

chromium refractories above the glass 

melt line and the air temperature above 

the glass melt. The furnace energy 

source (gas versus electric) is a more 

reliable indicator of the potential for 

chromium emissions from the refractory 

than refractory chromium content. 

Therefore, we opted to use the energy 

source as a basis of determining the 

types of area source furnaces to regulate 

rather than the chromium content of the 

refractory. We therefore propose that all 

wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources should 

be subject to the same emission limit 

being proposed today, regardless of the 

chromium content of the refractory 

bricks used to construct them. 

B. What are the proposed emission 

limits for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources? 

We are proposing a GACT standard of 

0.00006 pounds (lb) of chromium 

compounds per ton of glass pulled (0.06 

lb per thousand tons glass). This is the 

same limit we previously proposed for 

glass-melting furnaces used by wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities at 

major sources, pursuant to section 

112(d)(6) (76 FR 72770). 

We found that emissions of glassmelting furnaces, including those 

located at area sources, are generally 

below this limit. Thus, most glassmelting furnaces, specifically gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities, show this limit 

can be met using generally available 

control technologies and practices. 

We are also proposing a PM emission 

limit of 0.33 lb per ton of glass pulled. 

This is the same limit we are proposing 

for major sources in this action based on 

technology review showing most glassmelting furnaces using baghouses or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22378 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

electrostatic precipitators for PM 

control. Similarly, PM emissions from 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located 

at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities are all below this limit. The 

above proposed limits apply at all times. 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (Vacating the provisions 

of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1) that 

exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emissions standards 

during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunctions). 

Finally, because the analyses for 

technology review and for GACT both 

consider costs and analyze available 

technologies, and because major and 

area sources share the same control 

approaches, it is a reasonable outcome 

that the emission limits proposed for 

major sources under the technology 

review and the proposed GACT limits 

are the same. 

C. What are the proposed measurement 

methods, monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for glassmelting furnaces located at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing area sources? 

To be consistent with the major 

source rule, we are proposing the same 

test methods and procedures for PM and 

chromium compounds contained in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart NNN. 

In order to minimize the burden 

associated with stack testing, we are 

proposing a reduction in performance 

testing frequency. We are proposing that 

sources measuring chromium 

compounds in two successive 

performance tests that are less than 75 

percent of the limit of the rule be 

allowed to reduce their testing 

frequency (for chromium) to no less 

than every 3 years. We are also 

proposing that sources measuring PM 

emissions less than 75 percent of the 

limit in two successive performance 

tests be allowed to reduce their PM 

testing frequency to no less than every 

3 years. With each of these performance 

test frequency reductions, the reduced 

frequency benefit is lost if a subsequent 

re-test shows PM or chromium 

emissions above 75 percent of the 

emission standard. In that case, two 

successive performance tests 

demonstrating compliance below 75 

percent of the emission limit would be 

required for a source to, once again, 

qualify for less frequent emissions 

testing. 

To be consistent with the wool 

fiberglass manufacturing major source 

rule, we are proposing that glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources must 

meet all applicable monitoring 

requirements and all notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart NNN. 

D. What are the proposed decisions and 

actions related to startup, shutdown and 

malfunction provisions? 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

the EPA is proposing standards in this 

rule that apply at all times. In proposing 

these standards, the EPA has taken into 

account startup and shutdown periods. 

Based on the information before the 

Agency, which includes information 

provided by industry, we expect 

facilities can meet the proposed 

emission standards during startup and 

shutdown. Nothing in the record 

suggests that emissions will be greater 

during startup and shutdown periods 

and the record confirms that the control 

devices are operated during these 

periods. 

We are also including an alternative 

compliance provision that would allow 

sources to demonstrate compliance with 

the standards during startup and 

shutdown by keeping records showing 

that your furnace emissions were 

controlled using air pollution control 

devices operated at the parameters 

established by the most recent 

performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard. During 

startup and shutdown of a gas-fired 

furnace the operating temperatures and 

amounts of raw materials available to 

produce air emissions are lower than 

other operating periods. This would 

tend to result in lower uncontrolled 

emissions levels. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to assume that by continuing 

to operate the air pollution control 

equipment during these periods a 

source will be in compliance with the 

emissions limit. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble to the November 2011 

proposal and as discussed further 

below, we are proposing in this area 

source rule to include an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations 

of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.881 of the 

proposed rule (defining ‘‘affirmative 

defense’’ to mean, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or 

defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which 

are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding). 

We also are proposing other 

regulatory provisions to specify the 

elements that are necessary to establish 

this affirmative defense; the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.886. 

(See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria are 

designed in part to ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes a violation 

of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable 

preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation). 

For example, to successfully assert the 

affirmative defense, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the violation ‘‘[w]as 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner 

* * *.’’ The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.882(b) when 

finalized and to prevent future 

malfunctions. For example, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred * * *’’ and that 

‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health * * *.’’ 

In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative 

defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, 

appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the 

CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27). 

The EPA included an affirmative 

defense in this proposed rule in an 

attempt to balance a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulations, to ensure 

adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that ‘‘limit the 

quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7602(k)(defining ‘‘emission limitation 

and emission standard’’). See generally 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is 

required to ensure that section 112 

emissions standards are continuous. 

The affirmative defense for malfunction 

events meets this requirement by 

ensuring that even where there is a 

malfunction, the emission standard is 

still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. The United States Court of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22379 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently 

upheld the EPA’s view that an 

affirmative defense provision is 

consistent with section 113(e) of the 

Clean Air Act. Luminant Generation Co. 

LLC v. United States EPA, 699 F.3d.427 

(5th Cir. Oct. 12 2012) (upholding the 

EPA’s approval of affirmative defense 

provisions in a CAA State 

Implementation Plan). While 

‘‘continuous’’ standards, on the one 

hand, are required, there is also case law 

indicating that in many situations it is 

appropriate for the EPA to account for 

the practical realities of technology. For 

example, in Essex Chemical v. 

Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit 

acknowledged that in setting standards 

under CAA section 111 ‘‘variant 

provisions’’ such as provisions allowing 

for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction ‘‘appear 

necessary to preserve the reasonableness 

of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 

1973). Though intervening case law 

such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 

1977 amendments call into question the 

relevance of these cases today, they 

support the EPA’s view that a system 

that incorporates some level of 

flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative 

defense simply provides for a defense to 

civil penalties for violations that are 

proven to be beyond the control of the 

source. By incorporating an affirmative 

defense, the EPA has formalized its 

approach to upset events. In a Clean 

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit 

required this type of formalized 

approach when regulating ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 

F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). See 

also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. 

United States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 2012)(rejecting 

industry argument that reliance on the 

affirmative defense was not adequate). 

But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(holding that an informal approach is 

adequate). The affirmative defense 

provisions give the EPA the flexibility to 

both ensure that its emission standards 

are ‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 

U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for 

unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole. 

IV. How did we develop the proposed 

standards for glass-melting furnaces 

located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources? 

At proposal of the technology review 

and residual risk review of the major 

source NESHAP in 2011, we proposed 

emission limits for chromium 

compounds because hexavalent 

chromium is emitted from wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnaces and 

stated that we planned to regulate wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnaces located 

at area sources in a future action. (76 FR 

72770). The highest emitting glassmelting furnace, an oxyfuel glassmelting furnace, was measured emitting 

at 550 pounds per year, while other 

glass-melting furnaces were emitting 

between five and 250 pounds of 

chromium per year. We considered 

whether it was possible for other 

facilities to emit chromium compounds 

at the level of the highest emitting 

facility and proposed that, under the 

same circumstances, other wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities could 

emit at similar levels. We reasoned at 

proposal in 2011 that nothing prevents 

a wool fiberglass company from 

constructing a glass-melting furnace 

identical to the glass-melting furnace 

with the highest chromium emissions. 

As explained in the November 25, 

2011, proposal, the industry trade 

association (National Association of 

Insulation Manufacturers of America 

(NAIMA) had conducted a voluntary 

survey of companies that manufacture 

wool fiberglass. The survey sought test 

data on HAP emissions, process 

equipment, control devices and other 

aspects of the wool fiberglass 

manufacturing operations. With regard 

to total chromium compounds, the 

survey requested information on the 

chromium content of glass-melting 

furnaces at different parts of the glassmelting furnace and required all glassmelting furnaces to be tested for both 

total chromium and hexavalent 

chromium emissions. This voluntary 

survey was followed by the EPA’s 

section 114 information request letter 

requesting test data on total chromium 

compounds emissions from all glassmelting furnaces and information on 

glass-melting furnace design and 

refractory chromium content. 

A. How did the EPA select the emissions 

sources and pollutants to regulate? 

As previously discussed, wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities emit 

the following urban air toxics: arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, 

manganese, and nickel (PM is regulated 

as a surrogate for these metals) from the 

glass-melting furnace; and phenol, 

formaldehyde and methanol from the 

binding process. The emissions profile 

of glass-melting furnaces at area sources 

and major sources are identical. 

However, this is not true for emissions 

of formaldehyde from the binding 

operation. A facility becomes an area 

source by minimizing or eliminating 

binder formaldehyde emissions. For this 

reason, we determined that it is not 

necessary to include the binding 

operation in this proposed listing, and 

have limited the listing to chromium 

and PM as a surrogate for the remaining 

metal HAP from glass-melting furnaces. 

The glass-melting furnace design 

(layout and location of chromium 

refractory), energy source, and refractory 

age are the major factors affecting 

chromium emissions from glass-melting 

furnaces. 

There are two types of glass-melting 

furnaces in the wool fiberglass industry, 

gas-fired and electric. Oxyfuel, air gas, 

and recuperative air gas are gas-fired; 

cold-top electric and electric steel shell 

are electric glass-melting furnaces. All 

of these furnace types emit metal HAP 

in the form of controlled PM emissions 

at similar levels. However, based on 

new information gathered since the 

November 25, 2011, proposal of the 

major source RTR, we have determined 

that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

exhibit a greater potential to emit 

chromium compounds and other metal 

HAP than electric furnaces, and also to 

convert trivalent chromium to 

hexavalent chromium. 

Table 3 of this preamble presents a 

summary of the chromium test data for 

wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces. 

The data show a significant range of 

chromium emissions. All of the glassmelting furnace types have some 

sources that emit at very low levels, but 

only gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

show a potential to have chromium 

emissions levels above the 0.00006 lb/ 

ton glass pulled emissions level 

proposed for glass-melting furnaces. 

TABLE 3—RANGE OF CHROMIUM COMPOUND EMISSIONS BY GLASS-MELTING FURNACE TYPE

Glass-melting furnace type 

Cr compound 

emissions (lb/ 

1000 tons glass 

pulled) 

Electric Steel Shell ........... 0.0022–00.039 

Cold-Top Electric .............. 0.00078–0.027 

Air Gas .............................. .0025–0.96 

Oxy Fuel ........................... .011–3.5 

Available data indicate that all 

furnace types use high chromium 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22380 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

14EPA Notes of meeting with Certainteed, April 

14, 2011; Industry Meetings with EPA on March 19, 

2012; April 30, 2012; and December 6, 2012; email 

from Lauren P. Alterman, Saint-Gobain 

Corporation, regarding chrome emissions and 

refractory bricks, August 6, 2012). 

15Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B. 

‘‘Minimization of Hexavalent Chromium in 

Magnesite-Chrome Refractory’’. Y. Lee and C. L. 

Nassaralla. Vol. 28 B, Oct. 1997—pp. 855–859. 

refractory in some areas. However, 

information provided by the industry on 

furnace design indicates that gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces have a higher 

potential to emit chromium compounds 

due to the placement of the high 

chromium refractory, the physical 

layout of the furnace, the size and 

placement of the burners in relation to 

the sides and top of the glass-melting 

furnace, the depth from the burners to 

the top of the raw materials, the 

temperature at and above the melt, and 

the oxide concentration of the glassmelting furnace gas environment. In 

addition, gas-fired furnaces show the 

greatest potential to convert chromium 

to its most toxic form, hexavalent 

chromium, due to the significantly 

higher temperature above the glass melt 

line of a gas-fired furnace. 

These data (i.e., data submitted by the 

wool fiberglass manufacturing industry 

on glass-melting furnace type and 

construction materials in response to 

both NAIMA’s voluntary survey and the 

agency’s section 114 letter) indicate that 

the highest emitting glass-melting 

furnace is a gas-fired furnace, 

specifically, an oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnace constructed using chromium 

refractories. However, all glass-melting 

furnaces with the high chromium 

emissions were either oxyfuel or air gas 

glass-melting furnaces. The section 114 

information letter required 

measurements of both hexavalent and 

total chromium as well as identification 

of the location and chromium content of 

the refractories used in glass-melting 

furnace construction. 

The reason for the higher emission 

potential for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces is due to differences in design, 

construction materials, and operation of 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

compared to electric glass-melting 

furnaces. A chromium refractory 

product has the greatest resistance to 

heat and wear of any refractory in use 

today. The temperatures above the melt 

in gas-fired glass-melting furnaces range 

from 2,500 °F to 4,500 °F, while the 

temperatures in electric glass-melting 

furnaces are a few hundred degrees. Due 

to their higher operating temperatures, 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces are 

constructed using chromium refractories 

at various parts of the glass-melting 

furnace that are above the molten glass, 

including the crown. The chromium in 

the refractory is the source of the 

chromium emissions from the gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces.14 However, 

other influencing factors determine both 

the rate and magnitude of the chromium 

emissions when chromium is available 

in the furnace lining. The presence of 

chromium above the glass melt line, the 

percentage of chromium available in the 

refractory, the rate of degradation of the 

furnace interior, the chemistry of the 

wool fiberglass ‘recipe’, the temperature 

of the furnace, the oxidizing atmosphere 

of the furnace, the placement and 

proximity of burners to the furnace wall, 

and other design and construction 

factors contribute to the corrosion and 

erosion of the gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace refractory and the formation of 

hexavalent chromium furnace. In 

addition, the high temperatures result in 

more of the chromium being converted 

to its hexavalent state compared to 

electric furnaces. 

Since our November 25, 2011, 

proposal, we have learned that if a 

source of reasonably priced oxygen is 

available, the oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnace is the design favored for use by 

glass manufacturers due to the glassmelting furnace’s low NOX emissions 

(NOX is an ozone precursor), and low 

energy demands per volume output of 

glass. The low NOX emissions of an 

oxyfuel glass-melting furnace result 

from the fact that no air (which contains 

nitrogen) is introduced into the high 

temperature zone above the glass melt. 

Instead, the oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnace design mixes the natural gas 

fuel with pure oxygen for combustion, 

thus reducing NOX emissions. 

The DOE’s office of Industrial 

Technology, in association with 

industry experts from the glass 

manufacturing, refractory production 

sectors and the Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, conducted studies to 

determine ways to optimize energy uses, 

needs and efficiencies in industrial 

sectors. In these studies, industry 

experts agreed (Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, June 2006, p. 9) that oxyfuel 

glass-melting furnaces will ultimately 

replace air gas glass-melting furnaces by 

2020 due to these economic and 

environmental factors. For example, 

industry experts participating in the 

Industrial Technologies Program (ITP), 

under the Department of Energy’s 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy program, described the demands 

an oxyfuel glass-melting furnace places 

upon the refractory lining: ‘‘The ITP has 

recognized that a reduction in overall 

domestic energy consumption will 

occur if the primary energy-consuming 

industries improve their own energy 

efficiencies. Recognizing this need, the 

glass industry is currently converting 

older, conventional air-fuel-fired 

furnaces to oxyfuel firing, or in the case 

of new construction, is building new 

oxyfuel-fired furnaces instead. This has 

caused oxyfuel technology to become 

one of the fastest growing technologies 

in the glass industry because it promises 

pollution abatement, increased glasspull effectiveness, capital cost savings 

and increased energy efficiency. For 

example, a recent study has shown that 

approximately $202M in energy savings 

per year in 2005 and a $445M per year 

savings by 2020 could be expected with 

the conversion of air/fuel to oxy-fuelfired glass manufacturing furnaces. 

These results, which reflect energy 

savings of 2.8 and 14.2 TBtu/year, 

respectively, are based on the projection 

that 61 percent and 100 percent furnace 

conversions will occur by the years 

2005 and 2020, respectively.’’ 

Other studies (Metallurgical and 

Materials Transactions, Lee,Y., 

Nassaralla, C.L., 1998) advise us that, 

under normal industrial temperatures, 

which can exceed 1,300 ° F., and 

oxidizing conditions, trivalent 

chromium, which is present in the 

refractory, oxidizes to hexavalent 

chromium.15 It was found that 

uncombined and available oxides were 

responsible for a higher yield of 

hexavalent chromium. Consequently, an 

increasing concentration of oxides in 

the oxyfuel glass-melting furnace 

environment increases the formation of 

chromium from the trivalent state to 

hexavalent state. The condition of high 

oxides in the oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnace environment is one 

characteristic of the highest emitting 

glass-melting furnace (see Docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 

document number 0067: Region 7 Notes 

on CertainTeed Kansas City. June 10, 

2011. 13 pages). 

Moreover, while the degradation of 

the glass-melting furnace refractory 

indicates increasing chromium 

emissions, that process does not 

necessarily follow a normal and 

predictable pattern. The degradation of 

refractories within the glass-melting 

furnace is a function of numerous 

factors, including temperature, time, 

stress and the composite effects of aging 

and creep response. These processes are 

highly nonlinear, so the traditional 

equations that assume steady-state 

deformation rates are not appropriate 

(DOE and Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, June 2006 p. 63). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22381 

Although all glass-melting furnaces 

are constructed using chromium 

refractories (NAIMA letter dated January 

28, 2013. Industry Meeting Notes, 

August 31, 2011) at and below the line 

of contact defined by the refractory wall 

and the molten glass within the glassmelting furnace (the glass/metal line), 

oxyfuel and some air gas glass-melting 

furnaces have other glass-melting 

furnace parts constructed using 

chromium refractories, such as the 

crown and forehearth. The use of 

chromium refractories above the melt 

line is necessary to obtain the desired 

furnace life and reduce the necessity for 

hot repairs of the furnace. When the hot, 

corrosive and reactive gases of a gasfired glass-melting furnace come in 

contact with the high chromium 

refractories lining the area above the 

glass melt in high temperature glassmelting furnaces, the chromium is 

available to be oxidized and converted 

into its hexavalent form. 

The cost of rebuilding a wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnace ranges 

from 10–12 million dollars; most of this 

cost is the cost of skilled labor (C. Davis, 

CertainTeed Corp., April 2011). While 

chromium refractories are more 

expensive than conventional 

refractories, they are only incrementally 

so (DOE and Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, June 2006, p. 1). When 

conventional (high alumina/silica) 

refractories are used, the useful life of 

the glass-melting furnace is about 7 

years. Chromium refractories almost 

double the useful life of the glassmelting furnace. Therefore, industry has 

a strong economic incentive to develop 

and use longer lasting refractories in 

construction of the glass-melting 

furnaces. Industry spokespersons have 

indicated that they rely on using 

chromium refractories offering longer 

glass-melting furnace life, and have 

commented that the EPA should 

regulate the chromium emissions from 

wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces 

rather than regulate chromium content 

of refractories. (Email from 

Lauren.P.Alterman@saint-gobain.com to 

persons at the EPA, July 27, 2012, 10:32 

a.m., regarding chrome emissions and 

refractory bricks.) 

We have also found that as the 

refractories of the gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces degrade, the chromium of 

those refractories at and above the 

metal/glass line is emitted as particulate 

to the outside air. Chromium from the 

refractories below the metal/glass line is 

absorbed into the molten glass and 

becomes vitrified with the other raw 

minerals. Industry commented that 

refractory loss from degradation of the 

refractory walls in use is approximately 

20,000 pounds of refractory annually 

(minutes of the August 31, 2011 Meeting 

with Representatives of the Wool 

Fiberglass Industry and NAIMA). 

However, much of the loss occurs below 

the glass melt line. The chromium 

released below the glass melt line is 

believed to stay in the glass. 

The facility with the highest emitting 

glass-melting furnace (an oxyfuel glassmelting furnace) submitted chromium 

testing for state inventory reporting 

purposes over a seven-year period. As 

shown in Table 4 below, those test 

results are extrapolated using permitted 

production rates to calculate 

approximate annual emissions of 

chromium compounds. The calculations 

show that in 2004, chromium emissions 

are estimated to be less than 5 pounds 

annually. Repeated chromium 

emissions testing for the State reports in 

2005 and 2008 and permitted 

production rates for those years show 

chromium emissions increased to 540 

pounds per year for the same glassmelting furnace. Emissions testing 

conducted in 2010 speciating chromium 

by its compounds show that 93 percent 

of the chromium was in the hexavalent 

state. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF CHROMIUM

EMISSIONS FROM 2004–2010 

Year 

Glass-melting furnace 

chromium emissions at 

permitted production rate, 

pounds per year 

2004 .................... <5 

2005 .................... 30 

2008 .................... 114 

2010 .................... 540 

This glass-melting furnace was not 

reconstructed during this 7-year period 

covered by the chromium testing. This 

indicates that a degradation of the 

chromium refractory resulted in a 

significant increase in chromium 

emissions during this period. We 

collected source testing for all types of 

furnaces used in the wool fiberglass 

manufacturing industry. Specifically, 

each air-gas and oxyfuel furnace was 

tested, and facilities that operated 

identical electric furnaces provided 

testing for one furnace along with 

design, construction, and refractory 

information for all furnaces operated. 

Industry provided schematics of all 

types of furnace designs showing that 

while all wool fiberglass furnace ‘tanks’ 

(holding the molten materials) are 

constructed of high chromium 

refractory, only the gas-fired furnaces 

may also be constructed from chromium 

refractories above the molten glass. In 

our review of all the data submitted, 

only gas-fired furnaces are designed in 

a manner that, during operation, may 

emit significant amounts of chromium 

compounds. We, therefore, believe that 

because the gas-fired furnaces are the 

only furnaces in which the chromium 

refractory is exposed to oxidizing 

conditions at temperatures exceeding 

1,300 °F, gas-fired furnaces clearly 

demonstrate a greater potential for 

increased chromium emissions. While 

the highest emitting glass-melting 

furnace is located at a major source, we 

note, as we discussed in the proposed 

RTR rule, that there is no difference in 

a glass-melting furnace at a major source 

and the same design glass-melting 

furnace at an area source facility. 

The thermal, physical and chemical 

properties of molten wool fiberglass 

cause corrosion and erosion to the 

refractory lining of the glass-melting 

furnace, and the glass-melting furnace 

must be constructed of materials 

capable of resisting this environment. 

Because oxygen burns very hot, some of 

the highest refractory performance 

requirements in the industry are placed 

upon wool fiberglass oxyfuel glassmelting furnaces (‘‘New High Chrome 

Fused Cast Refractory for Use in Contact 

With Highly Corrosive Glasses’’, T.A. 

Myles and F. Knee, in Ceramic 

Engineering and Science Proceedings, 

The American Ceramic Society, 1986). 

Consequently, an oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnace used to produce wool fiberglass 

must be constructed of chromium 

refractories because these are the only 

types of materials currently available 

that are suitable for this use and meet 

the rigorous practical demands of wool 

fiberglass manufacturing. The industry 

has commented that the use of 

chromium refractories is economically 

essential to wool fiberglass 

manufacturing, because of normal high 

thermal and chemical stressors to 

oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces, 

chromium refractories are preferred by 

industry for economical and safe 

oxyfuel glass-melting furnace operation. 

Construction using these materials 

significantly increases the life of the 

glass-melting furnace (see Region 7 

Notes on CertainTeed Kansas City. June 

10, 2011. p. 5 of 13; email from 

Lauren.P.Alterman@saint-gobain.com to 

persons at the EPA, July 27, 2012, 10:32 

a.m., regarding chrome emissions and 

refractory bricks). 

In summary, because of the 

advantages of oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnaces over other wool fiberglass 

glass-melting furnace technology 

described in the preceding discussions, 

we expect oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnaces constructed of chromium 

refractories to replace many existing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22382 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces of 

other designs (Letter from NAIMA to 

Ms. Susan Fairchild, EPA, January 28, 

2013), particularly as sources of 

industrial oxygen are sited near wool 

fiberglass facilities (Oxygen-Enhanced 

Combustion, Baukal, Charles E. Jr., 

Prince B. Eleazar III, and Bryan C. Hoke, 

Jr. 1998). 

Emissions of the other metal HAP are 

very low for electric glass-melting 

furnaces. This low emission potential is 

inherent in the glass-melting furnace 

design. Electric glass-melting furnaces 

establish a crust on the raw material at 

the surface of the molten glass. They use 

electrodes which are embedded below 

the crust and within the molten glass to 

maintain the temperature of the melt, 

while the temperature above the melt is 

low. They also have lower air flows and 

low turbulence above the glass melt. 

Therefore the potential for metal 

emissions (in the form of PM entrained 

in the exhaust gas) from electric glassmelting furnaces is much lower than 

from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. 

Electric furnaces also do not have the 

same potential to emit chromium as gasfired furnaces. Although electric glassmelting furnaces are lined at and below 

the glass/metal line with chromium 

refractories, they are constructed using 

either non-chromium refractories (coldtop electric) or steel in place of 

refractories (electric steel shell) above 

the glass/metal line. This design is used 

because electric glass-melting furnaces 

operate with a dry batch cover and are 

tapped at the bottom or end of the glassmelting furnace to draw off the molten 

glass. Raw materials are constantly 

added to the top of the glass-melting 

furnace in damp form and create a crust 

on top of the molten glass. Steel shell 

glass-melting furnaces have a steel 

enclosure above glass/metal the line and 

cold-top electric glass-melting furnaces 

use non-chromium refractories above 

the glass/metal line. The air above the 

melt inside an electric glass-melting 

furnace is below 300 °F, and is not hot 

enough to warrant use of chromium 

refractories. Even if chromium 

refractories were used to construct the 

crown of the electric glass-melting 

furnace, the temperature of an electric 

glass-melting furnace above the glass/ 

metal line is insufficient to drive the 

chromium to its hexavalent state. 

Consequently, electric glass-melting 

furnaces do not have the same potential 

to emit chromium compounds that gasfired glass-melting furnaces have, and 

accordingly, many of the chromium test 

data collected at electric glass-melting 

furnaces are below the detection level of 

the emissions measurement method. All 

the electric glass-melting furnace test 

data were also below the proposed 

chromium limit for glass-melting 

furnaces at major sources in the 

November 25, 2011, proposed RTR rule 

amendments. 

Gas-fired furnaces also have a higher 

potential to emit PM, and consequently 

metal HAP. This is because gas-fired 

furnaces require that combustion air or 

oxygen and natural gas be blown into 

the furnace. This increases the gas flow 

velocities and turbulence above the 

glass melt tine, which increases the 

potential for particle entrainment in the 

exhaust gas. 

EPA’s original intent was to regulate 

metal emissions from glass-melting 

furnaces, which at that time included all 

existing furnaces. We have now 

determined that glass-melting furnaces 

at area source and major source facilities 

have the same emissions profiles. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to add glassmelting furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities to the area 

source list, and as previously noted we 

have the statutory authority to do so. 

However, gas-fired furnaces have a 

greater emissions potential than electric 

furnaces. Metal HAP emissions from 

electric glass-melting furnaces are 

inherently low, and more importantly, 

the potential to emit elevated amounts 

of chromium are low. Therefore we are 

limiting this listing to the furnaces with 

the greatest emissions potential, which 

are the gas-fired furnaces. In addition, 

due to certain source category specific 

facts, we are proposing limits for both 

PM and a separate limit for chromium. 

(See Memo to File ‘‘Development of 

Background Information on Proposed 

Area Source Emissions Limits’’, March 

15, 2013.) 

Wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces 

that are hybrid gas-fired and electric 

glass-melting furnaces would be 

included in this action; wool fiberglass 

glass-melting furnaces that are allelectric would not be included. 

Therefore, in today’s action we are 

proposing PM and chromium 

compounds emission limits that would 

apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

located at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities that are area sources. Electric 

glass-melting furnaces located at area 

sources would not be subject to this 

proposed rule. 

In today’s proposal, we are soliciting 

comment on whether to regulate only 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located 

at area sources or to regulate all glassmelting furnaces located at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities that 

are area sources. In addition we are 

soliciting comment on the pollutants 

regulated. 

B. How did the EPA select the format for 

the proposed rule for glass-melting 

furnaces located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources? 

The emission points covered by this 

proposed area source rule were selected 

to ensure control of chromium 

compounds and other metal HAP 

emissions from gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources. We are 

proposing to establish numerical 

emission limits in the form of mass of 

pollutant (chromium compounds and 

PM) per mass of glass pulled through 

the glass-melting furnace. The same 

format is used for emission limits in 

both the area and the major source rules. 

The emission limits in the proposed 

rule provide flexibility for the regulated 

community by allowing a regulated 

source to choose any control technology 

or technique to meet the emission 

limits, rather than requiring each unit to 

use a prescribed control method that 

may not be appropriate in every case. 

The EPA solicits comment on the format 

of the proposed standards. 

C. How did the EPA determine the 

proposed emission standards for glassmelting furnaces located at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing area sources? 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the 

Administrator may, in lieu of standards 

requiring maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) under section 

112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards 

or requirements for area sources ‘‘which 

provide for the use of generally 

available control technologies [‘‘GACT’’] 

or management practices by such 

sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Further, 

legislative history describes GACT as 

standards reflecting application of 

generally available control technology, 

that is, ‘‘methods, practices and 

techniques which are commercially 

available and appropriate for 

application by the sources in the 

category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the 

firms to operate and maintain the 

emissions control systems’’ (S. Rep. 

101–228 (December 20, 1989). In 

addition to technical capabilities of the 

facilities and availabilities of control 

measures, legislative history suggests 

that we may consider costs and 

economic impacts in determining 

GACT. 

In this proposed rule, we are setting 

emission standards to address emissions 

of chromium compounds and other 

metal HAP from wool fiberglass gasfired glass-melting furnaces (i.e. 

cadmium, beryllium, manganese, lead, 

and arsenic). In determining what 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22383 

16NaOH Scrubber Information. Telephone 

discussion and emails between vendors, companies 

and EPA. Steffan Johnson, Measurement Policy 

Group. USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD. 

constitutes GACT for this proposed rule, 

we considered the control technologies 

and management practices that are 

generally available to gas-fired wool 

fiberglass furnaces at area sources by 

examining relevant data and 

information, including information 

collected from all known wool fiberglass 

manufacturing sources. We also 

considered the risk and technology 

review standards proposed for major 

sources (76 FR 72770, November 25, 

2011), to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

proposed for the major sources are 

generally available to area sources as 

well. Finally, we considered the costs of 

available control technologies and 

management practices on area sources. 

In setting GACT we look to the 

control technologies generally available 

for major and area sources. From the 

information that we have collected to 

date in conjunction with this 

rulemaking, which includes stack 

testing and site visits at both major and 

area sources, we know that area sources 

have the same types of emissions, 

emission sources, and controls as major 

sources. Gas-fired wool fiberglass glassmelting furnaces at major and area 

sources are using the same control 

technologies (baghouses or electrostatic 

precipitators). The available emission 

data show no discernible differences 

between area source and major source 

furnaces. In fact, when a major source 

facility becomes an area source, the 

furnace emission and emissions controls 

do not change. Therefore, the control 

technologies used by major sources are 

generally available for area sources. 

The data in the record show that 

major and area source furnaces are 

equipped with technologies that 

effectively control chromium and metal 

HAP emissions, including, but not 

limited to, ESPs and fabric filters. In 

determining GACT, we examined 

different levels of control using these 

generally available control technologies 

and evaluated the cost of such control. 

We are proposing a PM emissions limit 

of 0.33 lb/ton glass pulled, and a 

chromium emissions limit of 6.5 × 10¥5

lb/ton glass pulled. We are proposing 

these limits because they reflect a level 

of control that can be achieved costeffectively using generally available 

control technologies and management 

practices. See Development of 

Background Information on Proposed 

Area Source Emissions Limit, March 15, 

2013. 

We estimate no costs or emission 

reductions associated with the proposed 

PM standard because the record shows 

that all the gas-fired area source 

furnaces are currently meeting the 

proposed emissions limit. Significantly, 

however, the proposed PM limit will 

codify current actual current PM 

emissions levels to prevent any future 

increase in PM emissions. Without the 

proposed limits, these furnaces could 

increase PM emissions at any time as 

they are no longer subject to Subpart 

NNN. 

There are three area source gas-fired 

furnaces that currently do not meet the 

proposed GACT for chromium. 

However, data are available for 

industries with similar control 

requirements that demonstrate that 

there are effective chromium control 

technologies available. We searched 

other industries for controls that would 

remove chromium and found that a 

sodium hydroxide (NaOH) scrubber is 

used in both high temperature 

metallurgical industries and in the 

chromium electroplating industry for 

removal of hexavalent chromium.16

Based on the effectiveness of this 

technology on to two different types of 

exhaust gas streams, we believe this 

control technology is transferable to 

wool fiberglass furnaces. Though there 

are currently no NaOH scrubbers 

applied in the wool fiberglass industry, 

there is currently one gas-fired furnace 

equipped with a PM control followed by 

a wet scrubber for SO2 control. This is 

directly analogous to using a NaOH wet 

scrubber downstream of the PM controls 

to achieve additional chromium 

removal. Assuming that the facilities not 

currently meeting the proposed 

chromium emission limit opted to use 

the NaOH scrubbers to achieve 

compliance, the cost of the proposed 

chromium emissions limit is $7,600 per 

pound of chromium. This is a 

reasonable cost given that chromium is 

an urban air toxic and that a significant 

portion of the chromium emitted from 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces is 

hexavalent chromium, which is 

extremely toxic and carcinogenic even 

in low amounts. We note that we found 

$11,000 per pound chromium removed 

to be a reasonable cost in the final 

Chromium Electroplating RTR 

rulemaking, where we regulated 

chromium compounds (77 FR 59220, 

September 19, 2012). For information on 

the methodology and more detailed 

results of this analysis, see the 

memorandum, Costs and Emission 

Reductions for the Proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP— 

Area Sources, in the docket and section 

V.B of this preamble. We did, however, 

examine lower limits and the costs 

associated therewith. See Development 

of Background Information on Proposed 

Area Source Emissions Limit, March 15, 

2013. 

The proposed limits for area sources 

are identical to the limits we have 

proposed for furnaces located at major 

sources as part of our technology review 

under 112(d)(6). It is reasonable that the 

limits for major and area sources be the 

same, especially, where, as here, there 

are no discernible differences between 

area and major source furnaces. 

Accordingly, we are proposing GACT 

standards for PM and chromium. We 

solicit comment on the proposed GACT 

standards for PM and chromium. 

D. How did the EPA determine the 

compliance and monitoring 

requirements for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area sources proposed 

rule? 

We are proposing testing, monitoring, 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to assure 

continuous compliance with the 

requirements of the proposed rule and 

that are consistent with the major source 

rule requirements in subpart NNN. In 

fact, the specific requirements in the 

proposed rule reference the 

requirements in § 63.1386 of subpart 

NNN. We solicit comment on the 

proposed compliance and monitoring 

requirements for area sources. These 

proposed requirements impose on 

facilities the minimum burden that is 

necessary to ensure compliance with the 

proposed rule. 

E. How did the EPA determine 

compliance dates for the proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources 

rule? 

Section 112 of the CAA provides 

limits for the dates by which affected 

sources must comply with the emission 

standards. New or reconstructed units 

would be required to be in compliance 

with the final rule immediately upon 

startup, or the date the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register, 

whichever is later. The proposed rule 

allows existing area sources up to one 

year to comply with the final rule. The 

CAA provides that existing sources 

must comply as expeditiously as 

possible but not later than 3 years after 

promulgation of the final NESHAP. We 

do not believe that 3 years for 

compliance is necessary to allow 

adequate time to design, install, and test 

control systems. All facilities currently 

already meet the proposed PM limit. If 

an area source must apply additional 

control to meet the chromium limit, we 

believe one year is adequate time given 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22384 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the fact that there is only one pollutant 

involved, and the available chromium 

control technology can be added 

downstream of the current PM controls 

and is a well established technology. 

However, sources can always petition 

their permitting authorities to allow for 

additional time to install controls 

pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B). We 

solicit comment on the proposed 

compliance dates for area sources. 

F. How did the EPA determine 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area sources proposed 

rule? 

Section 112 of the CAA requires the 

EPA to develop regulations that include 

requirements for reporting the results of 

testing and monitoring performed to 

determine compliance with the 

standards. In today’s action, we are 

proposing sources be required to 

comply with the applicable 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, 

as referenced in Table 1 of the proposed 

rule. We evaluated the General 

Provisions requirements, and included 

those we determined to be the minimum 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting necessary to ensure 

compliance with, and effective 

enforcement of, the proposed rule. The 

reports that we are proposing to be 

required are found in 40 CFR 63.886 of 

the proposed rule. 

We also determined the necessary 

records that need to be kept to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the proposed emission limits. 

These recordkeeping requirements are 

specified directly in the today’s 

proposed rule, and in the General 

Provisions to 40 CFR part 63. The 

recordkeeping requirements are found 

in 40 CFR 63.886 of the proposed rule. 

We are proposing that records be kept 

for 5 years in a form suitable and readily 

available for EPA review. We are 

proposing that records be kept on site 

for 2 years. Records may be kept off site 

for the remaining 3 years. 

The General Provisions include 

specific requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. The 

reports are specified in proposed 40 

CFR 63.886. 

The notification of compliance status 

report required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) must 

include certifications of compliance 

with rule requirements. The excess 

emissions and continuous system 

performance report and summary report 

required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of the 

NESHAP General Provisions (referred to 

in the rule as a compliance report) 

would be required to be submitted 

semiannually for reporting periods 

during which there was an exceedance 

of any emission limit, or a monitored 

parameter, or when a deviation from 

any of the requirements in the rule 

occurred, or if any process changes 

occurred, and compliance certifications 

were reevaluated. 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 

Rule 

The impacts presented in this section 

include the air quality, cost, non-air 

quality and economic impacts of 

complying with the proposed rule for 

wool fiberglass manufacturing located at 

facilities that are area sources to comply 

with the proposed rule. 

A. What are the air impacts for the 

proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area source rule? 

We have estimated the potential 

emission reductions from 

implementation of the proposed 

emission standards to be 50 pounds of 

chromium compounds per year. 

We estimated emission reductions of 

the proposed rule for each gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace. For all emission 

points, we first calculated emissions at 

the current level of control for each 

facility (referred to as the baseline level 

of control), and at the proposed level of 

control. We calculated emission 

reductions as the difference between the 

proposed level and baseline. 

B. What are the cost impacts for the 

proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area source rule? 

We considered the costs and benefits 

of achieving the proposed emission 

limits and identified five facilities with 

a total of eight glass-melting furnaces 

that would be subject to the proposed 

requirements. All eight glass-melting 

furnaces would have to conduct annual 

testing to demonstrate compliance. 

Based on the emission testing 

conducted in 2011 and 2012, three of 

the eight glass-melting furnaces would 

need to reduce their emissions to meet 

the proposed chromium compound 

emission limits. We found that the use 

of a sodium hydroxide scrubber is 

effective in reducing emissions of 

hexavalent chromium from other 

industrial processes and that the 

technology can be transferred to this 

industry sector. We estimated the 

capital cost for a sodium hydroxide 

scrubber to be $250,000 and the total 

annualized costs, including operating 

costs, to be $100,000. 

Costs are also incurred for compliance 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of the proposed 

rule. Based on the most recent test data 

provided, all eight glass-melting 

furnaces currently meet the proposed 

PM emission limit. 

Because the scrubbers will be 

installed on three furnaces, the 

industry-wide total capital investment 

will be $750,000. We estimate that the 

total annualized cost of these controls 

will be $300,000, in 2011 dollars. The 

annual performance testing costs are 

$10,000 per gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace. Since there are a total of eight 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at the 

five facilities, the total annual testing 

cost is $80,000. The estimated HAP 

reduction is 50 pounds of chromium 

compounds resulting in overall cost 

effectiveness of $7,600 per pound of 

HAP reduced. 

While we do not anticipate the 

construction of any new wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities in the next 5 

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

the 10 major source facilities to convert 

to non-HAP binders and become area 

sources. However, we did not estimate 

new source cost impacts for any 

additional facilities to avoid double 

counting the costs associated with the 

major source rule (subpart NNN) with 

similar gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

requirements. Table 5 below presents 

the costs to wool fiberglass area sources. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCE

STANDARDS (NN) IN THIS ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Est. capital 

cost 

($MM) 

Est. total 

annualized 

cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP emissions 

reductions Cost effectiveness Number facilities 

Installation of NaOH scrubber ................................... 0.25 × 3 0.1 × 3 50 pounds per year .. 7,600 ($ per pound) .. 2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22385 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING AREA SOURCE

STANDARDS (NN) IN THIS ACTION—Continued 

Proposed amendment 

Est. capital 

cost 

($MM) 

Est. total 

annualized 

cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP emissions 

reductions Cost effectiveness Number facilities 

Additional testing and monitoring for glass-melting 

furnaces.

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

The analysis is documented in the 

memorandum, Costs and Emission 

Reductions for the Proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP— 

Area Sources, and is available in the 

docket. 

C. What are the non-air quality health, 

environmental and energy impacts for 

the proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area source rule? 

We anticipate that three gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces would need to 

apply additional controls to meet the 

proposed chromium emission limits. 

These controls, sodium hydroxide 

scrubbers, use water. We estimate an 

annual requirement of 4.8 million 

gallons per year of additional 

wastewater would be generated as a 

result of additional water used for 

scrubbers. 

The energy impacts associated with 

meeting the proposed emission limits 

would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or 

improved air pollution control devices. 

By our estimate, we anticipate that an 

additional 1,000 megawatt-hours per 

year would be required for the 

additional and improved control 

devices. 

We anticipate the secondary air 

impacts from adding controls to meet 

the standards to be minimal. The 

combustion of fuel needed to generate 

additional electricity would yield slight 

increases in NOX, CO, SO2 emissions. 

Since NOX and SO2 emissions and 

electric generating units are covered by 

capped emissions trading programs, we 

do not estimate an increase in secondary 

air impacts for these pollutants for this 

rule form additional electricity demand. 

The combustion of additional fuel from 

additional electrical usage and 

supplemental fuel for incineration 

devices would yield CO emissions of 

less than 0.1 tpy. The analyses are 

documented in the memorandum, 

Secondary Impacts of the Proposed 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP—Area Sources, which is 

available in the docket. 

D. What are the economic impacts of the 

proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area source rule? 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for wool fiberglass consumers 

and producers nationally, using the 

annual compliance costs estimated for 

this proposed rule. The impacts to 

producers affected by this proposed rule 

are annualized costs of less than 0.01 

percent of their revenues, using the 

most current year available for revenue 

data. Prices and output for wool 

fiberglass products should increase by 

no more than the impact on cost to 

revenues for producers; thus, wool 

fiberglass prices should increase by less 

than 0.01 percent. Hence, the overall 

economic impact of this proposed rule 

should be low on the affected industries 

and their consumers. For more 

information, please refer to the 

Economic Impact and Small Business 

Analysis for this proposed rulemaking 

that is in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042). 

VI. What are the proposed changes to 

Mineral Wool Production (Subpart 

DDD) and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) major 

source rules? 

On November 25, 2011, the EPA 

proposed revisions to the Mineral Wool 

and the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subparts DDD 

and NNN, respectively, to address the 

results of the residual risk and 

technology review (RTR) that the EPA is 

required to conduct under sections 

112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2)(76 FR 72812). 

Today’s notice also proposes several 

revisions, corrections and clarifications 

to that proposal. 

A. Subpart DDD—Mineral Wool 

Production Major Source Rule 

Based on comments on the November 

2011 proposal and new data supplied by 

the industry, we are proposing the 

following revisions to the major source 

rule amendments: 

(1) In response to the limits proposed 

on November 25, 2011, we received raw 

material content information from the 

seven facilities producing mineral wool 

in the U.S. Of the seven facilities, three 

reported using slag and four reported 

only using minerals (rock) and coke 

(e.g., ‘‘no slag’’). Slag is a waste byproduct from the iron and steel industry 

and is location-specific depending on 

the type of facility/process generating 

the slag. Some slags have residual 

fluorides or chlorides which vary from 

location to location and from process to 

process. In response to this information, 

we are proposing to subcategorize the 

mineral wool cupolas into two 

categories: Those that process slag 

materials and those that do not. Based 

on this subcategorization, we are 

proposing revised standards for HCl and 

HF. 

The revised limits being proposed 

today are summarized in Table 6 below: 

TABLE 6—HCL AND HF EMISSION LIMITS FOR MINERAL WOOL CUPOLAS

[lb/ton of melt] 

Pollutant 2011 Proposed limit 

for all cupolas 

2013 Proposed limit 

for existing, new, 

and reconstructed 

cupolas using slag 

2013 Proposed limit 

for existing, new, 

and reconstructed 

cupolas not using 

slag 

HCl ....................................................................................................................... 0.0096 0.21 0.43 

HF ........................................................................................................................ 0.014 0.16 0.13 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22386 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(2) We are also proposing revised COS 

emission limits for cupolas based on 

additional information regarding cupola 

design supported by test data provided 

by industry in their comments on the 

November 2011 proposal. In response to 

the information provided, we are 

proposing to subcategorize cupolas into 

closed-top and open-top cupolas. The 

revised COS emission limits being 

proposed in this action are summarized 

in Table 7 below: 

TABLE 7—COS EMISSION LIMITS FOR MINERAL WOOL CUPOLAS

[lb/ton of melt] 

COS 2011 Proposed limit 

for existing cupolas 

2013 Proposed limit 

for existing cupolas 

2011 Proposed limit 

for new and reconstructed cupolas 

2013 Proposed limit 

for new and reconstructed cupolas 

Closed-Top ...................................................................... 3.3 3.4 0.017 0.025 

Open-Top ......................................................................... 3.3 6.8 0.017 4.3 

(3) The formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol emission limits for combined 

collection/curing operations proposed 

on November 25, 2011, have been 

revised based on comments and 

additional facility information. The 

revised limits being proposed in this 

action are summarized in Table 8 below. 

As a result of new test data, limits for 

vertical and drum collection/curing 

would increase compared to the limits 

previously proposed on November 25, 

2011. 

TABLE 8—EMISSION LIMITS FOR MINERAL WOOL COMBINED COLLECTION/CURING OPERATIONS

[lb/ton of melt] 

2011 Proposed 

limit 

2013 Proposed 

limit 

Curing & Drum Collection 

Formaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................... 0 .067 0 .18 

Phenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0023 1 .3 

Methanol ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .00077 0 .48 

Curing & Vertical Collection 

Formaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................... 0 .46 2 .7 

Phenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 .52 0 .74 

Methanol ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .63 1 .0 

Curing & Horizontal Collection 

Formaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................... 0 .054 0 .054 

Phenol ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 .15 0 .15 

Methanol ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .022 0 .022 

The updated draft risk assessment, 

located in the docket for this 

rulemaking, is based on actual 

emissions currently emitted by the 

industry. Due to new formaldehyde 

emissions data that were provided by 

the industry our estimate of risk from 

actual emissions has increased slightly 

compared to the risk assessment 

conducted for the November 25, 2011, 

proposal. The risk from mineral wool 

production is driven by formaldehyde. 

The MIR at proposal for actual baseline 

emissions was 4-in-1 million. The 

allowable MIR was estimated to be 10- 

in-1 million. The post control emissions 

MIR was estimated to be 4-in-1 million. 

The actual MIR increased to 10-in-1 

million, acute noncancer HQ increased 

from eight to 22 and the AEGL–1 

increased from 0.4 to 1.1 based on the 

new test data characterizing actual 

emissions. While the risk increased 

slightly, we note that it is still very low, 

is evaluated using conservative 

methods, and is still well within a level 

we consider acceptable (that is, less 

than 100-in-1 million). 

(4) We are proposing definitions for 

open-top cupolas, closed-top cupolas 

and slag. 

(5) The Part 63 GP have been 

amended seven times since they were 

first promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 12430), 

and subpart DDD cites to the GP 

requirements as they appeared in 1999. 

As a result, numerous citations to the 

GP appear in subpart DDD that have 

since changed. In today’s action, we 

propose technical corrections to GP 

citations to accurately reflect the GP as 

they now appear. 

(6) In response to industry comments 

we are proposing to remove the 

requirement for PM testing by EPA 

method 202 contained in the original 

proposal. The PM emission limits were 

based on testing that measured only 

filterable particulate. Including Method 

202 as a required test method would 

measure condensible particulate, which 

was not accounted for in determining 

the PM limit. 

B. Subpart NNN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Major Source Rule 

Based on comments on the November 

2011 proposal and new data supplied by 

the industry, we are proposing the 

following revisions to the major source 

rule amendments: 

(1) At the time of the November 25, 

2011 proposal, we proposed that all 

glass-melting furnaces (electric or gasfired) located at major sources would be 

subject to the limit for chromium 

compounds we proposed pursuant to 

112(d)(6) and (f)(2). However, because of 

information we have developed since 

the November 25 proposal, we are now 

only proposing to apply the chromium 

emissions limit for glass-melting 

furnaces to furnaces fired with gas. This 

would include oxyfuel, recuperative air 

gas, air gas, and hybrid electric and air 

gas furnaces. Comments received 

indicated that a separate chromium 

limit is not necessary for electric 

furnaces. (See section IV.A of this 

preamble for more information) Gasfired glass-melting furnaces would be 

required to limit their emissions of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22387 

chromium compounds to no more than 

0.06 pounds of chromium compounds 

per thousand tons of glass pulled (6 × 

10¥5 lb/ton). Glass-melting furnaces 

emitting at rates less than 75 percent of 

the proposed limit would be able to 

reduce their testing frequency from 

annually to every 3 years. Glass-melting 

furnaces emitting at or above 75 percent 

of the proposed limit would be required 

to test annually, as described in the 

performance test requirements (see 

section 63.884) of the proposed rule. 

(2) Consistent with our intent to 

propose PM standards resulting from 

our technology review, under section 

112(d)(6), we are revising the PM limit 

for all glass-melting furnaces from 0.5 to 

0.33 lb PM per ton glass pulled. The 

limits proposed in the November 25, 

2011, notice (76 FR 72815) were 

calculated incorrectly and did not 

reflect the technology review results as 

described in that notice. The revised 

limits proposed in today’s action are 

based on our technology review and 

reflect our analysis of the level of 

control being achieved by the majority 

of the industry using baghouses and 

electrostatic precipitators. 

(3) We are proposing work practice 

standards for control of HF and HCl 

emissions from furnaces, instead of the 

emission limits in the November 25, 

2011, proposal. During the comment 

period, we received comment from 

industry that most of the test data 

revealed results that were below the 

detection limits (BDL) of the method. 

Upon reexamination of our analysis of 

the acid gas data, we found that over 80 

percent of the HF and HCl test data were 

BDL, and as such we now agree with the 

commenter and believe that rather than 

a numerical emission limit, a work 

practice standard is appropriate for this 

case. We are therefore proposing a work 

practice standard for HF and HCl 

emissions from furnaces. (See Memo to 

File ‘‘Development of Background 

Information on Proposed Area Source 

Emissions Limits’’, March 15, 2013.) 

Under section 112(h) of the CAA, the 

EPA may adopt a work practice 

standard in lieu of a numerical emission 

standard only if it is ‘‘not feasible in the 

judgment of the Administrator to 

prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard for control of a hazardous air 

pollutant’’. This phrase is defined in the 

Act to apply to any situation ‘‘in which 

the Administrator determines that 

* * * the application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ CAA section 112(h)(1) and 

(2). 

The EPA regards situations where, as 

here, the majority of the measurements 

are below the detection limit as being a 

situation where measurement is not 

‘‘technologically practicable’’ within the 

meaning of section 112(h)(2)(B) of the 

CAA. (See 76 FR 25046 where EPA 

proposed set work practice standards for 

dioxins and organic HAP for utility 

boilers.) Unreliable measurements raise 

issues of practicability and of feasibility 

and enforceability (see section 

112(h)(1)). The application of 

measurement methodology in this 

situation would also not be ‘‘practicable 

due to * * * economic limitation’’ 

within the meaning of section 

112(h)(2)(B) since it would just result in 

cost expended to produce analytically 

suspect measurements. 

(4) In the November 25, 2011 proposal 

we proposed new MACT emission 

limits for RS lines for formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol. In today’s 

proposal, we are revising the emission 

limits for RS lines based on clarification 

of test data received from the industry 

during the comment period. During the 

data collection phase, we required 

companies to provide test data on 

bonded lines even if these lines had 

phased out the use of formaldehyde and 

were not producing a product that was 

subject to Subpart NNN. Many 

companies did not distinguish between 

the bonded lines that still used 

formaldehyde and those that did not. 

We mistakenly included some data for 

HAP-free lines with the data for lines 

still using formaldehyde. Today’s notice 

proposes to correct that error and to 

propose revised emission limits for 

formaldehyde, phenol and methanol 

from RS manufacturing lines 

summarized in Table 9 of this preamble. 

TABLE 9—EMISSION LIMITS FOR ROTARY SPIN MANUFACTURING LINES

HAP Current limit 

(1999 rule) 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 

Existing Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled) 

Formaldehyde ...................................................................................................................... 1.2 0 .17 0.19 

Phenol .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 0 .19 0.26 

Methanol .............................................................................................................................. .......................... 0 .48 0.83 

New or Reconstructed Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled) 

Formaldehyde ...................................................................................................................... 0.8 0 .020 0.087 

Phenol .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 0 .0011 0.063 

Methanol .............................................................................................................................. .......................... 0 .00067 0.61 

(5) In the original NESHAP, FA lines 

were subcategorized by product (heavy 

density wool fiberglass verses pipe 

product). In the November 25, 2011 

proposal we included new MACT 

emission limits for FA lines for 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

that applied to both heavy density wool 

fiberglass and pipe product. However, 

we did not clearly state that we were 

eliminating the FA line subcategories 

that existed in the original NESHAP. We 

are proposing to eliminate subcategories 

of FA manufacturing lines because we 

no longer believe that a technical basis 

exists to distinguish these subcategories. 

As part of rule development, industry 

provided test data that they claimed was 

representative of FA lines for both 

product types. The 2011 and 2012 ICR 

response data indicate that only one 

company uses FA processes to produce 

several different products on the same 

lines. This is the company that provided 

the test data on which the limits for FA 

lines are based. 

(6) As with the amendments to 

subpart DDD discussed in section 

VI(A)(5) of this preamble, we are 

proposing to make technical corrections 

to the GP citations in the rule. These 

amendments would serve to accurately 

identify the requirements of the GP that 

apply to subpart NNN. 

(7) An industry commenter stated that 

for measuring the concentration of 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

the use of the proposed EPA Method 

318 can result in non-quantifiable levels 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22388 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that are inappropriate to determine the 

proposed emission limits. The 

commenter requested the option to 

determine all organics by EPA Method 

318 or, alternatively, to determine 

formaldehyde by EPA Method 316; 

determine phenol by EPA Method 

8270D; and determine methanol by EPA 

Method 308. The EPA agrees that EPA 

Method 318 may result in nonquantifiable levels that are 

inappropriate for compliance 

determination. Therefore we are 

proposing to allow compliance testing 

with EPA Method 318 for all organics 

or, alternatively, to determine 

formaldehyde by EPA Method 316; 

determine phenol by EPA Method 

8270D; and determine methanol by EPA 

Method 308. 

(8) In the November 25, 2011 

proposal, we proposed to require 

Method 0061 to measure chromium 

compounds. An industry commenter 

stated that most existing compliance 

tests require the use of EPA Method 29 

to measure chromium compounds, and 

asked us to allow Method 29 to also be 

acceptable for measuring chromium 

compounds. We agree with the 

commenter that Method 29 is an 

acceptable method for this purpose, and 

we propose to also allow compliance 

testing with EPA Method 29 for total 

chromium compounds. 

C. Revisions to Startup, Shutdown and 

Malfunction Provisions 

In the proposed rules for mineral 

wool and wool fiberglass to which this 

supplemental proposal is added, the 

EPA proposed the removal of the 

exemptions pertaining to periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction, 

and proposed standards that apply at all 

times. This supplemental proposal does 

not change those proposed standards. 

In our proposal to revise subparts 

DDD and NNN for major sources, we 

proposed the elimination of the startup 

and shutdown exemption and other 

related requirements, including 

eliminating the requirement to develop 

and maintain a startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. However, in the 

proposal notice, we neglected to revise 

section 63.1386(c), which contains 

planning, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements related to startup and 

shutdown. In this supplemental 

proposal, we are correcting this 

oversight and replacing prior 

requirements with recordkeeping and 

reporting appropriate to standards 

applicable at all times. 

Consistent with our intent to revise 

the requirements related to SSM, we 

proposed several revisions to Table 1 

(the General Provisions Applicability 

Table). The changes in the supplemental 

proposal here correctly correspond to 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the rule 

revisions as proposed in 76 FR 72770. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the revisions we are proposing to 

eliminate are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

As we proposed, the Subpart DDD 

emissions limits apply at all times. In 

the proposed RTR rule, we did not 

define the periods of startup or 

shutdown. In light of the comments 

received on the proposed rule, which 

raise questions as to when startup and 

shutdown begin and end, we are 

proposing definitions of startup and 

shutdown. We are proposing to define 

startup to be when the coke interspersed 

with layers of rock and/or slag and other 

mineral products are ignited. We are 

proposing startup as ending when 

molten mineral wool begins to flow 

from the cupola. We are proposing to 

add a definition of shutdown to be 

when the cupola has reached the end of 

the melting campaign and is empty. 

As was the case with wool fiberglass 

furnaces, the uncontrolled emissions 

from a mineral wool cupola are 

expected to be lower during startup and 

shutdown periods than during other 

operating periods due to lower 

temperatures, and in the case of 

shutdown less raw materials. Therefore, 

if a source continues to route the 

exhaust to the air emissions control 

equipment, and operate that equipment 

consistent with the operating 

parameters established during the last 

successful compliance test, the source 

would be expected to maintain 

compliance with the emissions limits 

during startup and shutdown. 

Therefore, we are proposing a 

compliance alternative allowing sources 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions limits during startup and 

shutdown by keeping records 

establishing that its emissions were 

routed to the air pollution control 

devices, and these control devices were 

operated at the parameters established 

by the most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the emissions 

limit. 

For subpart NNN we are also retaining 

the requirements that the emissions 

limits apply at all times, including 

startup and shutdown. For the reasons 

previously discussed in III.D, we are 

adding a compliance alternative for 

startup and shutdown of all furnaces 

that a facility keep records 

demonstrating that emissions are routed 

to the air pollution control devices, and 

all applicable control devices were 

operated at the same parameters as they 

were operated during the most recent 

performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard. 

Electric cold-top furnaces are 

controlled differently than other furnace 

types. In this case cold-top glass-melting 

furnaces could demonstrate compliance 

by melting only cullet until a crust on 

the batch cover has been established. 

Cullet has a lower emissions potential 

than other raw materials typically used. 

Therefore, limiting the raw material to 

only cullet during startup will result in 

lower emissions. We are also adding a 

requirement that all other glass-melting 

furnaces could demonstrate compliance 

during startup by preheating the empty 

glass-melting furnace using only natural 

gas. 

As with the amendments to subpart 

DDD discussed in section VI(A)(5) of 

this preamble, we are proposing to make 

technical corrections to the GP citations 

in the rule. These amendments would 

serve to accurately identify the 

requirements of the GP that apply to 

subpart NNN. 

Finally, we are also proposing 

affirmative defense language that differs 

in some respects from the language we 

proposed in November of 2011. For 

example, we have used the term 

‘‘exceedance’’ rather than the term 

‘‘violation’’ in several places. We have 

also eliminated the two-day notification 

requirement and the directive that offshift and overtime labor be used to the 

extent practicable to make repairs and 

have revised the reporting requirement 

deadlines. We are asking for comments 

on the language we have proposed today 

that differs from the language proposed 

in November 2011. 

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to 

Mineral Wool Production (Subpart 

DDD) and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) Major 

Source Rules 

A. Subpart DDD—Mineral Wool 

Production Major Source Rule 

Emissions of COS and formaldehyde 

from mineral wool production facilities 

have declined over the last decade as a 

result of federal rules, state rules and on 

the industry’s own initiative. Today’s 

proposed amendments would maintain 

emissions of COS, formaldehyde, 

phenol or methanol emissions at their 

current low levels. 

We do not anticipate any adverse 

water quality or solid waste impacts 

from the proposed amendments to the 

1999 MACT rule because the proposed 

requirements would not change the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22389 

existing requirements that impact water 

quality or solid waste. 

The estimated cost impacts have been 

reduced from those in the November 25, 

2011, proposal. In the November 2011 

RTR proposal, we estimated the total 

annualized costs from the rule as 

$548,000. Those cost estimates included 

$360,000 for low sulfur coke and other 

raw materials and $243,000 for 

additional testing and monitoring. In 

that proposal, annual testing was 

required for sources to comply with the 

rule. In this supplemental proposal, we 

reevaluated those costs and the 

compliance testing frequency, and the 

costs presented below in Table 10 

wholly replace those estimated in the 

November 2011 proposed rule. As 

explained in section VI.A. of this 

preamble, the EPA is establishing 

subcategories for mineral wool based on 

(1) whether slag is included in the raw 

materials melted in the cupola(s), and 

(2) whether the line has a closed-top 

cupola or an open-top cupola. All 

existing lines with closed-top cupolas 

are fitted with RTO which convert the 

high concentrations of COS in the 

cupola exhaust gas to energy that is 

returned to the cupola. This technology 

reduces the consumption of coke up to 

30 percent and, because of the cost of 

coke, this technology pays for itself over 

a period of several years. Emissions of 

COS are below 0.03 lb COS per ton melt 

when an RTO is installed for energy 

recovery and new source MACT for 

closed-top cupolas is based upon the 

use of this technology. Open-top 

cupolas do not accommodate RTO. 

Today’s proposed rule establishes a 

limit of 4.3 lbs COS per ton melt for new 

lines with open-top cupolas, and 6.8 lbs 

COS per ton melt for existing lines. All 

lines currently in operation can meet 

this limit without new control 

equipment or different input materials, 

and thus will not incur additional costs. 

The total annualized costs for these 

proposed amendments are estimated at 

$59,200 (2011 dollars) for additional 

testing and monitoring. Note also that 

the cost impacts for today’s proposed 

rule are about 10 percent of those 

proposed in November 2011. This 

reduction in cost is due to two factors. 

First, we have subcategorized cupolas 

according to design and use of slag. 

Second, cost changes for testing and 

monitoring are due to a reduced 

frequency of testing: from annual 

required under the proposed rule to 

testing every 5 years under this 

supplemental proposal. Other 

differences also affect the cost 

comparison. These include one new 

source in the source category (Roxul in 

Mississippi) and the change from cost 

estimates based upon 2010 dollars to 

2011 dollars. Table 10 below provides a 

summary of the estimated costs and 

emissions reductions associated with 

today’s proposed amendments to the 

Mineral Wool Production NESHAP. 

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION PROPOSED STANDARDS IN THIS

ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Estimated 

capital cost 

($MM) 

Estimated 

annual cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP 

emissions 

reductions 

(tons per year) 

Cost effectiveness in $ per 

ton total HAP 

reduction 

Additional testing and monitoring .................................................................... 0 0.059 N/A N/A 

B. Subpart NNN—Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Major Source Rule 

We evaluated the impacts to the 

affected sources based on all available 

information. Two significant sources 

were the 2010 and 2011/2012 emissions 

testing and subsequent conversations 

with NAIMA and individuals operating 

industry facilities. According to the 

2010 and 2012 emissions test data, there 

are three glass-melting furnaces at two 

facilities that do not meet the proposed 

chromium compound emission limit. 

Our assessment of impacts is based on 

the data from tested glass-melting 

furnaces only, and may not be 

representative of untested glass-melting 

furnaces. We anticipate that 10 of the 30 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

currently operating in the United States 

are currently major sources and would 

be affected by these proposed 

amendments. We estimate that two of 

the 10 wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities that are major sources would 

install air pollution controls. 

We expect that today’s proposed RTR 

amendments would result in reductions 

of 442 pounds of chromium 

compounds. Hexavalent chromium can 

be as much as 93 percent of the total 

chromium compounds emitted from 

wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces. 

We believe that all affected facilities 

will be able to comply with the today’s 

proposed work practice standards for 

HF and HCl without additional controls, 

and that there will be no measurable 

reduction in emissions of these gases. 

Also, we anticipate that there will be no 

reductions in PM emissions due to these 

proposed PM standards because all 

sources currently meet the revised PM 

limit. 

Indirect or secondary air quality 

impacts include impacts that will result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices. We do not anticipate significant 

secondary impacts from the proposed 

amendments to the Wool Fiberglass 

MACT. 

The capital costs for each facility were 

estimated based on the ability of each 

facility to meet the proposed emissions 

limits for PM, chromium compounds, 

formaldehyde, phenol and methanol. 

The memorandum, Cost Impacts of the 

Proposed NESHAP RTR Amendments 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category, includes a complete 

description of the cost estimate methods 

used for this analysis and is available in 

the docket. 

Under today’s proposed amendments, 

eight of the 10 major source wool 

fiberglass facilities will not to incur any 

capital costs to comply with the 

proposed emissions limits. Five 

facilities would be subject to new costs 

for compliance testing on gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces, which will total 

$80,000 annually for the entire industry. 

At this time, there are two facilities with 

a total of three gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces that do not meet the proposed 

emissions limit for chromium 

compounds. We anticipate that these 

facilities would install a sodium 

hydroxide scrubber on each of three 

glass-melting furnaces, for a total capital 

cost of $750,000. The total annualized 

cost for the scrubbers, including 

operating and maintenance costs, is 

estimated to be $300,000. There are a 

total of eight gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at five major source 

facilities. Annual performance testing 

costs would be $10,000 per glassmelting furnace, resulting in total glassmelting furnace testing costs of $80,000. 

The 10 major source facilities would 

incur total annualized costs of $80,400 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22390 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

for additional compliance testing on 

their FA and RS manufacturing lines 

and six of those facilities would incur 

a total cost of $750,000 for operation 

and maintenance of their existing 

thermal oxidizers due to the proposed 

rule emission limits. The total 

annualized costs for the proposed 

amendments are estimated at $1.21 

million (2011 dollars). 

Table 11 below summarizes the costs 

and emission reductions associated with 

the proposed amendments. 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING MAJOR

SOURCE STANDARDS (NNN) IN THIS ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Est. capital 

cost 

($MM) 

Est. total 

annualized 

cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP emissions 

reductions Cost effectiveness Number facilities 

Gas-Fired Glass-Melting Furnaces 

Installation of NaOH scrubber ..................................... 0.25 × 3 0.1 × 3 455 pounds per year 835 ($ per pound) ... 2 

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

RS and FA Manufacturing Lines 

Operation and Maintenance of thermal oxidizer ......... 0 0.750 123 tons per year .... 6750 ($ per ton) ...... 6 

Additional testing and monitoring for FA and RS lines 0 0.080 N/A ........................... 10 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011), and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, the EPA prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in Costs and 

Emission Reductions for the Proposed 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP—Area Source, in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. A copy 

of the analysis is available in the docket 

for this action and the analysis is briefly 

summarized in section V.B of this 

preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by the EPA has been assigned 

EPA ICR No. 2481.01. 

The information requirements are 

based on notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emission standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

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

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. The requirements discussed 

below pertain only to the proposed area 

source rule. The requirements for the 

major source rule remain unchanged 

from the November 2011 proposal. 

The proposed rule would require 

maintenance inspections of the control 

devices, and some notifications or 

reports beyond those required by the 

General Provisions. The recordkeeping 

requirements require only the specific 

information needed to determine 

compliance. The information collection 

activities in this ICR include the 

following: Performance tests, operating 

parameter monitoring, preparation of a 

site-specific monitoring plan, 

monitoring and inspection, one-time 

and periodic reports, and the 

maintenance of records. Some 

information collection activities 

included in the NESHAP may occur 

within the first 3 years, and are 

presented in this burden estimate, but 

may not occur until 4 or 5 years 

following promulgation of the proposed 

standards for some affected sources. To 

be conservative in our estimate, the 

burden for these items is included in 

this ICR. An initial notification is 

required to notify the Designated 

Administrator of the applicability of this 

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

A notification of performance test must 

be submitted, and a site-specific test 

plan written for the performance test, 

along with a monitoring plan. Following 

the initial performance test, you must 

submit a notification of compliance 

status that documents the performance 

test and the values for the operating 

parameters. A periodic report submitted 

every six months documents the values 

for the operating parameters and 

deviations. Owners or operators of wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities are 

required to keep records of certain 

parameters and information for a period 

of 5 years. The annual testing, annual 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) is 

estimated to be $32,808. This includes 

77 labor hours per year at a total labor 

cost of $6,088 per year, and total nonlabor capital costs of $26,720 per year. 

This estimate includes initial and 

annual performance tests, conducting 

and documenting semiannual excess 

emission reports, maintenance 

inspections, developing a monitoring 

plan, notifications and recordkeeping. 

Monitoring and testing cost were also 

included in the cost estimates presented 

in the control costs impacts estimates in 

section V of this preamble. The total 

burden for the Federal government 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 16 hours per year, at a 

total labor cost of $695 per year. Burden 

is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22391 

When malfunctions occur, sources 

must report them according to the 

applicable reporting requirements of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart NN. An affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations 

of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions is available to a source if 

it can demonstrate that certain criteria 

and requirements are satisfied. The 

criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the 

event that causes an exceedance of the 

emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(e.g., sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance or careless operation) and 

where the source took necessary actions 

to minimize emissions. In addition, the 

source must meet certain reporting 

requirements. For example, the source 

must prepare a written root cause 

analysis and submit a written report to 

the Administrator documenting that it 

has met the conditions and 

requirements for assertion of the 

affirmative defense. The EPA 

considered whether there might be any 

burden associated with the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense. Any 

such burdens are only incurred if there 

has been a violation and a source 

chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense. Therefore, the EPA 

estimates that there would be no 

additional costs for sources that choose 

to take advantage of the affirmative 

defense for malfunctions since it is 

already required for compliance with 

the rule. However, there may be other 

malfunctions that are not currently 

regulated under the part 61 NESHAP 

that might prompt a source to take 

advantage of an affirmative defense. 

To provide the public with an 

estimate of the relative magnitude of the 

burden associated with an assertion of 

the affirmative defense position adopted 

by a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to the ICR 

that show what the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements associated with 

the assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required reports and records, including 

the root cause analysis, totals $3,141, 

and is based on the time and effort 

required of a source to review relevant 

data, interview plant employees, and 

document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused a violation 

of an emission limit. The estimate also 

includes time to produce and retain the 

record and reports for submission to the 

EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative 

estimate of this burden because these 

costs are only incurred if there has been 

a violation and a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that the 

EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events 

reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above), and only a subset of 

violations caused by malfunctions 

would result in the source choosing to 

assert the affirmative defense. 

Thus, we expect the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. For this reason, we 

estimate no more than one such 

occurrence will occur per year for all 

sources subject to subpart NN over the 

3-year period covered by this ICR. We 

expect to gather information on such 

events in the future and will revise this 

estimate as better information becomes 

available. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and the OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the 

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after April 15, 

2013, a comment to OMB is best assured 

of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by May 15, 2013. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, or any other statute, unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the SBA’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

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

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. For this source 

category, which has the general NAICS 

code 327993 (i.e., Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing), the SBA small business 

size standard is 750 employees 

according to the SBA small business 

standards definitions. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities in the Mineral Wool Production 

and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source categories, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Five of the 

seven Mineral Wool Production parent 

companies affected in this proposed 

rule are considered to be small entities 

per the definition provided in this 

section. There are no small businesses 

in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category. We estimate that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on any of those 

companies. 

While there are some costs imposed 

on affected small businesses as a result 

of this rulemaking, the costs associated 

with today’s action are less than the 

costs associated with the limits 

proposed on November 25, 2011. 

Specifically, the cost to small entities in 

the Mineral Wool Production source 

category due to the changes in COS, HF, 

and HCl are lower as compared to the 

limits proposed on November 25, 2011. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22392 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

None of the five small mineral wool 

parent companies are expected to have 

an annualized compliance cost of 

greater than one percent of its revenues. 

All other affected parent companies are 

not small businesses according to the 

SBA small business size standard for the 

affected NAICS code (NAICS 327993). 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

impacts for this proposed rule do not 

constitute a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Although these proposed rules would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried 

to mitigate the impact that these rules 

would have on small entities. The 

actions we are proposing to take to 

mitigate impacts on small businesses 

include less frequent compliance testing 

for the entire mineral wool industry and 

subcategorizing the Mineral Wool 

Production Source Category in 

developing the proposed COS, HF and 

HCl emissions limits than originally 

required in the November 25, 2011, 

proposal. For more information, please 

refer to the economic impact and small 

business analysis that is in the docket. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

The total annualized cost of these rules 

is estimated to be no more than 

$150,000 (2011$) in any one year. Thus, 

these rules are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA, 

because they contain no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

These rules only impact mineral wool 

and wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities, and, thus, do not impact small 

governments uniquely or significantly. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The proposed 

rules impose requirements on owners 

and operators of specified major and 

area sources, and not on state or local 

governments. There are no wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities or 

mineral wool production facilities 

owned or operated by state or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and State and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from State and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The proposed rules impose 

requirements on owners and operators 

of specified area and major sources, and 

not tribal governments. There are no 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

or mineral wool production facilities 

owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. The 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

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

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The EPA 

estimates that the requirements in this 

proposed action would cause most wool 

fiberglass manufacturers to modify 

existing air pollution control devices 

(e.g., increase the horsepower of their 

wet scrubbers) or install and operate 

new control devices, resulting in a small 

increase in the megawatt-hours per year 

of additional electricity being used. 

Given the negligible change in energy 

consumption resulting from this 

proposed action, the EPA does not 

expect any significant price increase for 

any energy type. The cost of energy 

distribution should not be affected by 

this proposed action at all since the 

action would not affect energy 

distribution facilities. We also expect 

that any impacts on the import of 

foreign energy supplies, or any other 

adverse outcomes that may occur with 

regards to energy supplies, would not be 

significant. We, therefore, conclude that 

if there were to be any adverse energy 

effects associated with this proposed 

action, they would be minimal. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public 

Law 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its 

regulatory activities, unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the agency 

conducted searches for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 

NESHAP through the Enhanced NSSN 

Database managed by the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI). We 

also contacted VCS organizations and 

accessed and searched their databases. 

Under 40 CFR part 63 subpart NN, 

searches were conducted for EPA 

Methods 5 and 29. The search did not 

identify any other VCS that were 

potentially applicable for this rule in 

lieu of EPA reference methods. 

We proposed VCS under the NTTAA 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

(NNN) and for Mineral Wool Production 

(DDD) in November 2011. Commenters 

asked to have the option to use other 

EPA methods to measure their 

emissions for compliance purposes. 

These are not VCS and as such are not 

subject to this requirement. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking, and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS, and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22393 

17U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste 

Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing 

Office; 1995. 18Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice 

Research. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 19Mennis J. Using Geographic Information 

Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces 

of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

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

297. 20Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. 

Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United 

Church of Christ. March, 2007. 21The results of the demographic analysis are 

presented in Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride, September 2010, a 

copy of which is available in the docket. 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations, 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

An analysis of demographic data 

shows that the average percentage of 

minorities, percentages of the 

population below the poverty level, and 

the percentages of the population 17 

years old and younger, in close 

proximity to the sources, are similar to 

the national averages, with percentage 

differences of 3, 1.8, and 1.7, 

respectively, at the 3-mile radius of 

concern. These differences in the 

absolute number of percentage points 

from the national average indicate a 9.4- 

percent, 14.4-percent, and 6.6-percent 

over-representation of minority 

populations, populations below the 

poverty level, and the percentages of the 

population 17 years old and younger, 

respectively. 

In determining the aggregate 

demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, the 

EPA used census data at the block group 

level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near 

affected sources, such that they have 

notable exposures to current emissions 

from these sources. In this approach, the 

EPA reviewed the distributions of 

different socio-demographic groups in 

the locations of the expected emission 

reductions from this rule. The review 

identified those census block groups 

with centroids within a circular 

distance of a 0.5, 3, and 5 miles of 

affected sources, and determined the 

demographic and socio-economic 

composition (e.g., race, income, 

education, etc.) of these census block 

groups. The radius of three miles (or 

approximately five kilometers) has been 

used in other demographic analyses 

focused on areas around potential 

sources.17 18 19 20 There was only one 

census block group with its centroids 

within 0.5 miles of any source affected 

by the proposed rule. The EPA’s 

demographic analysis has shown that 

these areas, in aggregate, have similar 

proportions of American Indians, 

African-Americans, Hispanics, and 

‘‘Other and Multi-racial’’ populations to 

the national average. The analysis also 

showed that these areas, in aggregate, 

had similar proportions of families with 

incomes below the poverty level as the 

national average, and similar 

populations of children 17 years of age 

and younger.21

The EPA defines Environmental 

Justice to include meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

polices. To promote meaningful 

involvement, the EPA has developed a 

communication and outreach strategy to 

ensure that interested communities have 

access to this proposed rule, are aware 

of its content, and have an opportunity 

to comment during the comment period. 

During the comment period, the EPA 

will publicize the rulemaking via 

environmental justice newsletters, 

Tribal newsletters, environmental 

justice listservs and the Internet, 

including the EPA Office of Policy 

Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http:// 

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

The EPA will also conduct targeted 

outreach to environmental justice 

communities, as appropriate. Outreach 

activities may include providing general 

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

important for my community) for 

environmental justice community 

groups, and conducting conference calls 

with interested communities. In 

addition, State and Federal permitting 

requirements will provide State and 

local governments, and members of 

affected communities the opportunity to 

provide comments on the permit 

conditions associated with permitting 

the sources affected by the proposed 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Wool 

fiberglass manufacturing. 

Dated: March 15, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (p)(10) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(10) Method 8270D (SW–846–8270D), 

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by 

Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 4, 

February 2007, in EPA Publication No. 

SW–846, Test Methods for Evaluating 

Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 

Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved 

for §§ 63.1385, 63.11960, 63.11980, and 

table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Part 63 is amended by adding 

subpart NN to read as follows: 

Subpart NN—National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources 

Sec. 

63.880 Applicability. 

63.881 Definitions. 

63.882 Emission standards. 

63.883 Monitoring requirements. 

63.884 Performance test requirements. 

63.885 Test methods and procedures. 

63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

63.887 Compliance dates. 

63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 

63.889–63.899 [Reserved] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22394 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Table 1. Subpart NN of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR 

Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN 

Subpart NN—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at 

Area Sources 

§ 63.880 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

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

requirements of this subpart apply to 

the owner or operator of each wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility that is 

an area source or is located at a facility 

that is an area source. 

(b) The requirements of this subpart 

apply to emissions of particulate matter 

(PM) and chromium compounds, as 

measured according to the methods and 

procedures in this subpart, emitted from 

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

fiberglass manufacturing facility that is 

an area source. 

(c) The provisions of this part 63, 

subpart A that apply and those that do 

not apply to this subpart are specified 

in Table 1 of this subpart. 

(d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

that are not subject to NNN are subject 

to this subpart 

(e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

using electricity as a supplemental 

energy source are subject to this subpart 

§ 63.881 Definitions. 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, 

or in this section as follows: 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Bag leak detection system means 

systems that include, but are not limited 

to, devices using triboelectric, light 

scattering, and other effects to monitor 

relative or absolute particulate matter 

(PM) emissions. 

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means 

a unit comprising a refractory vessel in 

which raw materials are charged, melted 

at high temperature using natural gas 

and other fuels, refined, and 

conditioned to produce molten glass. 

The unit includes foundations, 

superstructure and retaining walls, raw 

material charger systems, heat 

exchangers, exhaust system, refractory 

brick work, fuel supply and electrical 

boosting equipment, integral control 

systems and instrumentation, and 

appendages for conditioning and 

distributing molten glass to forming 

processes. The forming apparatus, 

including flow channels, is not 

considered part of the gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric glassmelting furnaces as defined in Part 63, 

subpart NNN are not gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. 

Glass pull rate means the mass of 

molten glass that is produced by a single 

glass-melting furnace or that is used in 

the manufacture of wool fiberglass at a 

single manufacturing line in a specified 

time period. 

Manufacturing line means the 

manufacturing equipment for the 

production of wool fiberglass that 

consists of a forming section where 

molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass 

mat is formed and which may include 

a curing section where binder resin in 

the mat is thermally set and a cooling 

section where the mat is cooled. 

Wool fiberglass means insulation 

materials composed of glass fibers made 

from glass produced or melted at the 

same facility where the manufacturing 

line is located. 

Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility 

means any facility manufacturing wool 

fiberglass. 

§ 63.882 Emission standards. 

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

the initial performance test is completed 

or required to be completed under § 63.7 

of this part, whichever date is earlier, 

(i) For each existing, new, or 

reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace you must not discharge or cause 

to be discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of: 

(A) 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate 

matter (PM) per ton of glass pulled; and 

(B) 0.00006 lb of chromium (Cr) 

compounds per ton of glass pulled (60 

lb per million tons glass pulled). 

(b) Operating limits. On and after the 

date on which the performance test 

required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 and 

63.1384 is completed, you must operate 

all affected control equipment and 

processes according to the following 

requirements. 

(1)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour of an alarm from 

a bag leak detection system and 

complete corrective actions in a timely 

manner according to the procedures in 

the operations, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a Quality 

Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent with 

the compliance assurance monitoring 

provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D 

when the bag leak detection system 

alarm is sounded for more than 5 

percent of the total operating time in a 

6-month block reporting period. 

(2)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when any 3-hour 

block average of the monitored 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) 

parameter is outside the limit(s) 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.884 and complete 

corrective actions in a timely manner 

according to the procedures in the 

operations, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64 subpart D when the 

monitored ESP parameter is outside the 

limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate the ESP such 

that the monitored ESP parameter is not 

outside the limit(s) established during 

the performance test as specified in 

§ 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the 

total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(3)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when any 3-hour 

block average value for the monitored 

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

furnace, which uses no add-on controls, 

is outside the limit(s) established during 

the performance test as specified in 

§ 63.884 and complete corrective actions 

in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64 subpart D when the 

monitored parameter(s) is outside the 

limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than five percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate a gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace, which uses no 

add-on technology, such that the 

monitored parameter(s) is not outside 

the limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than 10 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(4)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when the 

average glass pull rate of any 4-hour 

block period for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces equipped with continuous 

glass pull rate monitors, or daily glass 

pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not 

so equipped, exceeds the average glass 

pull rate established during the 

performance test as specified in 

§ 63.884, by greater than 20 percent and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22395 

complete corrective actions in a timely 

manner according to the procedures in 

the operations, maintenance and 

monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart D when the glass 

pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 

percent, the average glass pull rate 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.884 for more than 

five percent of the total operating time 

in a 6-month block reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate each gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace such that the glass 

pull rate does not exceed, by more than 

20 percent, the average glass pull rate 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 

percent of the total operating time in a 

6-month block reporting period. 

(5)(i) You must initiate corrective 

action within one hour when the 

average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or 

pressure drop (for a venturi scrubber) 

for any 3-hour block period is outside 

the limits established during the 

performance tests as specified in 

§ 63.884 for each wet scrubbing control 

device and complete corrective actions 

in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring plan. 

(ii) You must implement a QIP 

consistent with the compliance 

assurance monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 64, subpart D when any 

scrubber parameter is outside the 

limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in § 63.884 

for more than five percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(iii) You must operate each scrubber 

such that each monitored parameter is 

not outside the limit(s) established 

during the performance test as specified 

in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of 

the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period. 

§ 63.883 Monitoring requirements. 

You must meet all applicable 

monitoring requirements contained in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. 

§ 63.884 Performance test requirements. 

(a) If you are subject to the provisions 

of this subpart you must conduct a 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits in § 63.882. Compliance 

is demonstrated when the emission rate 

of the pollutant is equal to or less than 

each of the applicable emission limits in 

§ 63.882. You must conduct the 

performance test according to the 

procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

A and in this section. 

(b) You must meet all applicable 

performance test requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

NNN. 

§ 63.885 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) You must use the following 

methods to determine compliance with 

the applicable emission limits: 

(1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A) for the selection of the 

sampling port location and number of 

sampling ports; 

(2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A) for volumetric flow rate; 

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

appendix A) for O2 and CO2 for diluent 

measurements needed to correct the 

concentration measurements to a 

standard basis; 

(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A) for moisture content of the 

stack gas; 

(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A) for the concentration of 

PM. Each run must consist of a 

minimum run time of 2 hours and a 

minimum sample volume of 2 dry 

standard cubic meters (dscm). The 

probe and filter holder heating system 

may be set to provide a gas temperature 

no greater than 120 ±14 °C (248 ±25 °F); 

(6) Method 29 (appendix A of this 

subpart) for the concentration of 

chromium compounds. Each run must 

consist of a minimum run time of 2 

hours and a minimum sample volume of 

2 dscm. 

(7) An alternative method, subject to 

approval by the Administrator. 

(b) Each performance test shall consist 

of three runs. You must use the average 

of the three runs in the applicable 

equation for determining compliance. 

§ 63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

(a) Requirements. You must meet all 

applicable notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements contained in 

40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. 

(b) Affirmative Defense for 

Exceedance of Emission Limit During 

Malfunction. In response to an action to 

enforce the standards set forth in this 

subpart, you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 

CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed if you fail to meet the burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense shall not be available for claims 

for injunctive relief. 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

you must timely meet the notification 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation or maintenance. 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred and 

(iii) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(iv) If the violation resulted from a 

bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

must also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

you must submit a written report to the 

Administrator, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that meets 

the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. This affirmative 

defense report shall be included in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22396 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

first periodic compliance, deviation 

report or excess emission report 

otherwise required after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance, deviation report or 

excess emission report is due less than 

45 days after the initial occurrence of 

the violation, the affirmative defense 

report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

§ 63.887 Compliance dates. 

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this 

subpart shall demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

no later than: 

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

of this section, the compliance date for 

an owner or operator of an existing 

plant or source subject to the provisions 

in this subpart would be 1 year after 

promulgation. 

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

of this section, the compliance date for 

new and reconstructed plants or sources 

is upon startup of a new gas-fired glassmelting furnace or at promulgation of 

the final rule. 

(3) The compliance date for the 

provisions related to malfunctions and 

affirmative defense provisions of 

§ 63.886 and the electronic reporting 

provisions of § 63.886 is at 

promulgation of the final rule. 

(b) Compliance extension. The owner 

or operator of an existing source subject 

to this subpart may request from the 

Administrator an extension of the 

compliance date for the emission 

standards for one additional year if such 

additional period is necessary for the 

installation of controls. You must 

submit a request for an extension 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.6(i)(3) of this part. 

§ 63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(b) You must not shut down items of 

equipment that are required or utilized 

for compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being routed to such items 

of equipment, if the shutdown would 

contravene requirements of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment. 

This paragraph does not apply if you 

must shut down the equipment to avoid 

damage due to a contemporaneous 

startup or shutdown of the affected 

source or a portion thereof. 

(c) Startup begins when the wool 

fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

has any raw materials added. Startup 

ends when molten glass begins to flow 

from the glass-melting furnace. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat 

sources to the glass-melting furnace are 

reduced to begin the glass-melting 

furnace shut down process. Shutdown 

ends when the glass-melting furnace is 

empty or the contents are sufficiently 

viscous to preclude glass flow from the 

glass-melting furnace. 

(e) For a new or existing affected 

source, to demonstrate compliance with 

the gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

emission limits in § 63.882 during 

periods of startups and shutdowns, 

demonstrate compliance in accordance 

with this paragraph (e) of this section. 

(f) During periods of startup and 

shutdown, records establishing that 

your air pollution control devices were 

operated at the parameters established 

by the most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the standard 

may be used to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits. 

§§ 63.889–63.899 [Reserved] 

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

SUBPART NN 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation 

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

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

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

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

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

63.5(a), (b), (c) ............................... Existing, New, Reconstructed 

Sources Requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standards.

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

opacity standards. 

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

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

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

Applicability Notification Quality 

Assurance/Test Plan Testing 

Facilities.

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

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

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

63.7(f), (g), (h) ............................... Alternative Test Method Data 

Analysis Waiver of Tests.

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22397 

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

SUBPART NN—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation 

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

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

requirement. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of 

actions taken during malfunction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

malfunctions. 

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

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

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

Performance Test Results 

Opacity or VE Observations.

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

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

malfunctions. 

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

Emission/CMS Performance 

Reports COMS Data Reports 

Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver.

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

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

with the emissions limits. 

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

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

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

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

Subpart DDD—[AMENDED] 

■ 4. Section 63.1178 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 

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

as follows: 

§ 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards 

must I meet? 

(a) * * * 

(2) Limit emissions of carbonyl 

sulfide (COS) from each existing, new, 

or reconstructed closed-top cupola to 

the following: 

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

for existing closed-top cupolas. 

(ii) 0.025 lb of COS per ton melt or 

less for new or reconstructed closed-top 

cupolas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22398 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Limit emissions of COS from each 

existing, new, or reconstructed open-top 

cupola to the following: 

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

for existing open-top cupolas. 

(ii) 4.3 lb of COS per ton melt or less 

for new or reconstructed open-top 

cupolas. 

(4) Limit emissions of hydrogen 

fluoride (HF) from each existing, new, 

or reconstructed cupola to the 

following: 

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

for cupolas using slag as a raw material. 

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

less for cupolas that do not use slag as 

a raw material. 

(5) Limit emissions of hydrogen 

Chloride (HCl) from each existing, new, 

or reconstructed cupola to the 

following: 

(i) 0.21 lb of HCl per ton of melt or 

less for cupolas using slag as a raw 

material. 

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

less for cupolas that do not use slag as 

a raw material. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1179 is amended by 

revising the section heading, paragraph 

(a) and paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1179 For combined collection/curing 

operations, what standards must I meet? 

(a) You must control emissions from 

each existing and new combined 

collection/curing operations by limiting 

emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol to the following: 

(1) For combined drum collection/ 

curing operations: 

(i) 0.18 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

melt or less, 

(ii) 1.3 lb of phenol per ton melt or 

less, and 

(iii) 0.48 lb of methanol per ton melt 

or less. 

(2) For combined horizontal 

collection/curing operations: 

(i) 0.054 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

melt or less, 

(ii) 0.15 lb of phenol per ton melt or 

less, and 

(iii) 0.022 lb of methanol per ton melt 

or less. 

(3) For combined vertical collection/ 

curing operations: 

(i) 2.7 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt 

or less, 

(ii) 0.74 lb of phenol per ton melt or 

less, and 

(iii) 1.0 lb of methanol per ton melt 

or less. 

(b) You must meet the following 

operating limits for each combined 

collection/curing operations 

subcategory: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.1180 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) and adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1180 When must I meet these 

standards? 

* * * * * 

(d) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

(e) Affirmative defense for violation of 

emission standards during malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in § 63.1197, you 

may assert an affirmative defense to a 

claim for civil penalties for violations of 

such standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed 

if you fail to meet your burden of 

proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense shall not be available for claims 

for injunctive relief. 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

you must timely meet the reporting 

requirements in § 63.1191 of this 

subpart, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount, and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(iv) If the violation resulted from a 

bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

must submit a written report to the 

Administrator with all necessary 

supporting documentation that explains 

how it has met the requirements set 

forth in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

This affirmative defense report shall be 

included in the first periodic 

compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report otherwise required after 

the initial occurrence of the violation of 

the relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance, deviation report or 

excess emission report is due less than 

45 days after the initial occurrence of 

the violation, the affirmative defense 

report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1196 is amended by 

adding definitions, in alphabetical 

order, for ‘‘Closed-top cupola,’’ 

‘‘Combined collection/curing 

operations,’’ and ‘‘Open-top cupola’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.1196 What definitions should I be 

aware of? 

* * * * * 

Closed-top cupola means a cupola 

that operates as a closed (process) 

system and has a restricted air flow rate. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22399 

Combined collection/curing 

operations means the combination of 

fiber collection operations and curing 

ovens used to make bonded products. 

* * * * * 

Open-top cupola means a cupola that 

is open to the outside air and operates 

with an air flow rate that is unrestricted 

and at low pressure. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.1197 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1197 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(b) You must not shut down items of 

equipment that are utilized for 

compliance with this subpart. 

(c) Startup begins when the coke 

interspersed with layers of rock and/or 

slag and other mineral products are 

ignited. Startup ends when molten 

mineral wool begins to flow from the 

cupola. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the cupola 

has reached the end of the melting 

campaign and is empty. No mineral 

wool glass continues to flow from the 

cupola during shutdown. 

(e) During periods of startups and 

shutdowns you may demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits in 

§ 63.1178 by keeping records showing 

that your emissions were controlled 

using air pollution control devices 

operated at the parameters established 

by the most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the standard. 

■ 9. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

SUBPART DDD 

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD Explanation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.1(c)(1)–(c)(2) ............................. Applicability After Standard Established.Yes ................................................

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

63.1(c)(5) ....................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.4(b)(1)–(b)(2) ............................ Circumvention ............................... Yes ................................................

63.4(c) ............................................ Fragmentation ............................... Yes ................................................

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

63.5(b)(1) ....................................... Requirements for Existing, Newly 

Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.5(f) ............................................. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review.Yes ................................................

63.6(a) ............................................ Compliance with Standards and 

Maintenance Applicability.

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

63.6(b)(1)–(b)(5) ............................ ....................................................... .......................................................

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

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

63.6(c)(1)–(c)(2) ............................. Compliance Dates for Existing 

Sources.

Yes ................................................ § 63.1180 specifies compliance 

dates. 

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

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

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

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

requirement. 

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

requirements. 

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22400 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

SUBPART DDD—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD Explanation 

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

(SSM) Plan.

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

63.6(f)(1)–f(3) ................................. SSM exemption ............................ No .................................................

63.6(g) ............................................ Alternative Nonopacity Emission 

Standard.

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

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

63.6(i)(1)–(i)(14) ............................. Extension of Compliance .............. Yes ................................................ § 63.1180 specfies the dates 

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

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

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

63.7(a) ............................................ Performance Test Requirements 

Applicability.

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

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

63.7(c) ............................................ Quality Assurance Program ......... Yes ................................................

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

63.7(e)(1) ....................................... Performance testing ..................... No ................................................. See § 63.1180. 

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

63.6(f) ............................................. Use of an alternative test method Yes ................................................

63.7(g)(1) ....................................... Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, 

and Reporting.

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

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

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

63.7(h) ............................................ Waiver of Performance Test ........ 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)(i) .................................... General duty to minimize emissions and CMS operation.No ................................................. See § 63.1180(e) for general duty 

requirement. 

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

Plan for CMS.

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

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

which refers to SSM plan. SSM 

plans are not required.

63.8(e) ............................................ Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Systems.No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require 

CMS performance evaluations. 

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

63.8(f)(6) ........................................ Alternative to RATA Test .............. No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require 

CEMS. 

63.8(g)(1) ....................................... Reduction of Monitoring Data ....... Yes ................................................

63.8(g)(2) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require 

COMS or CEMS. 

63.8(g)(3)–(g)(5) ............................ ....................................................... Yes ................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.9(f) ............................................. Notification of VE/Opacity Test .... No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not include 

VE/opacity standards. 

63.9(g) ............................................ Additional CMS Notifications ........ No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require 

CMS performance evaluation, 

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)(1) ..................................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes ................................................ § 63.1192 includes additional requirements. 

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

duration of startups and shutdowns.

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22401 

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

SUBPART DDD—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD Explanation 

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

duration and (iii) actions taken 

during malfunction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.10(c)(5) ..................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

63.10(c)(6) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require 

CMS performance specifications. 

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

exceedances and excess emissions.

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

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

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

of malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) ....................... ....................................................... No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require a 

CMS quality control program. 

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

63.10(d)(1) ..................................... General Reporting Requirements Yes ................................................ Additional requirements in 

§ 63.1193. 

63.10(d)(2) ..................................... Performance Test Results ............ Yes ................................................

63.10(d)(3) ..................................... Opacity or VE Observations ......... No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not include 

VE/opacity standards. 

63.10(d)(4) ..................................... Progress Reports .......................... Yes ................................................

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

malfunctions. 

63.10(e)(1)–(e)(2) .......................... Additional CMS Reports ............... No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require 

CEMS or CMS performance 

evaluations. 

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

63.10(e)(4) ..................................... COMS Data Reports .................... No ................................................. Subpart DDD does not require 

COMS. 

3.10(f) ............................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Yes ................................................

63.11(a) .......................................... Control Device Requirements Applicability.Yes ................................................

63.11(b) .......................................... Flares ............................................ No ................................................. Flares not applicable. 

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

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

63.11(e) .......................................... Alternative Work Practice Requirements.Yes ................................................

3.12 ................................................ State Authority and Delegations ... Yes ................................................

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

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

63.15 .............................................. Availability of Information and 

Confidentiality.

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

63.16 .............................................. Performance Track Provisions ..... Yes ................................................

Subpart NNN—[AMENDED] 

■ 10. Section 63.1380 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1380 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Each new and existing flame 

attenuation wool fiberglass 

manufacturing line producing a bonded 

product. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.1381 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order a definition 

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

§ 63.1381 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means 

a unit comprising a refractory vessel in 

which raw materials are charged, melted 

at high temperature using natural gas 

and other fuels, refined, and 

conditioned to produce molten glass. 

The unit includes foundations, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22402 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

superstructure and retaining walls, raw 

material charger systems, heat 

exchangers, exhaust system, refractory 

brick work, fuel supply and electrical 

boosting equipment, integral control 

systems and instrumentation, and 

appendages for conditioning and 

distributing molten glass to forming 

processes. The forming apparatus, 

including flow channels, is not 

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

subpart are not gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.1382 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1382 Emission standards. 

(a) Emission limits—(1) Glass-melting 

furnaces. On and after the date the 

initial performance test is completed or 

required to be completed under § 63.7 of 

this part, whichever date is earlier: 

(i) For each existing, new, or 

reconstructed glass-melting furnace you 

must not discharge or cause to be 

discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate 

matter (PM) per ton glass pulled; 

(ii) For each existing, new, or 

reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace you must not discharge or cause 

to be discharged into the atmosphere in 

excess of 6.0E–5 lb of chromium (Cr) 

compounds per ton glass pulled (0.06 lb 

per thousand tons glass pulled). 

(2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. 

On after the date the initial performance 

test is completed or required to be 

completed under § 63.7 of this part, 

whichever date is earlier, 

(i) For each existing rotary spin (RS) 

manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 0.19 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 0.26 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.83 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

(ii) For each new or reconstructed RS 

manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 0.087 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 0.063 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.61 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

(3) Flame attenuation manufacturing 

lines. On and after the date the initial 

performance test is completed or 

required to be completed under § 63.7 of 

this part, whichever date is earlier, 

(i) For each existing flame attenuation 

(FA) manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 5.6 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 1.4 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

(ii) For each new or reconstructed FA 

manufacturing line you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of: 

(A) 3.3 lb of formaldehyde per ton 

glass pulled; 

(B) 0.46 lb of phenol per ton glass 

pulled; and 

(C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton glass 

pulled. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.1384 is amended by 

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

follows: 

§ 63.1384 Performance test requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to be conducted 

within 90 days of the promulgation date 

of this rule to demonstrate compliance 

with the chromium compounds 

emissions limit specified in 

§ 63.1382(a)(1)(i), you must conduct an 

annual performance test for chromium 

compounds emissions from each glassmelting furnace (no later than 12 

calendar months following the previous 

compliance test). 

(1) You must conduct chromium 

compounds emissions performance tests 

according to § 63.1385 on an annual 

basis, except as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(2) through (4) of this section. Annual 

performance tests must be completed no 

more than 13 months after the previous 

performance test, except as specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. 

(2) You can conduct performance tests 

less often for chromium compounds if 

your performance tests for the pollutant 

for at least 2 consecutive years show 

that your emissions are at or below 75 

percent of the emission limit and if 

there are no changes in the operation of 

the affected source or air pollution 

control equipment that could increase 

emissions. In this case, you do not have 

to conduct a performance test for 

chromium compounds for the next 2 

years. You must conduct a performance 

test during the third year and no more 

than 37 months after the previous 

performance test. 

(3) If your gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace continues to meet the emission 

limit for chromium compounds, you 

may choose to conduct performance 

tests for the pollutant every third year 

if your emissions are at or below 75 

percent of the emission limit and if 

there are no changes in the operation of 

the affected source or air pollution 

control equipment that could increase 

emissions, but each such performance 

test must be conducted no more than 37 

months after the previous performance 

test. 

(4) If a performance test shows 

chromium compounds emissions 

exceeded 75 percent of the emission 

limit, you must conduct annual 

performance tests for that pollutant 

until all performance tests over a 

consecutive 2-year period meet the 

required level of 75 percent of the 

emission limit. 

(e) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, 

phenol and methanol emissions limits 

specified in § 63.1382, you must 

conduct a performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with each of 

the applicable PM, formaldehyde, 

phenol and methanol emissions limits 

in § 63.1382 of this subpart at least once 

every 5 years. 

■ 14. Section 63.1385 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) and 

adding paragraphs (a)(11) through (15) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1385 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A) for the concentration of 

total PM. Each run must consist of a 

minimum run time of 2 hours and a 

minimum sample volume of 2 dry 

standard cubic meters (dscm). The 

probe and filter holder heating system 

may be set to provide a gas temperature 

no greater than 120 ±14°C (248 ±25 °F); 

(6) Method 318 (appendix A of this 

subpart) for the concentration of 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. 

Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of 10 spectra; 

* * * * * 

(11) Method 316 (40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A) for the concentration of 

formaldehyde. Each test run must 

consist of a minimum of 2 hours and 2 

dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of 

sample volume; 

(12) Method SW–846 0010 and 

Method SW–846 8760D (http:// 

www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/ 

sw846/) for the concentration of phenol. 

Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of 3 hours; 

(13) Method 8270D for the 

concentration of phenol. Each test run 

must consist of a minimum of 3 hours; 

(14) Method 308 (40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A) for the concentration of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22403 

methanol. Each test run must consist of 

a minimum of 2 hours; 

(15) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A) for the concentration of 

chromium compounds. Each test run 

must consist of a minimum of 3 hours 

and 3 dscm of sample volume; 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.1386 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Records and reports for a failure to 

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

affected unit fails to meet a standard, 

record the number of failures since the 

prior notification of compliance status. 

For each failure record the date, time 

and duration of each failure. 

(2) For each failure to meet a standard 

record and retain a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the standard for which the 

source failed to meet the standard, and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

(3) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 63.1382, 

including corrective actions to restore 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

(4) If an affected unit fails to meet a 

standard, report such events in the 

notification of compliance status 

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

number of failures to meet a standard 

since the prior notification. For each 

instance, report the date, time and 

duration of each failure. For each failure 

the report must include a list of the 

affected units or equipment, an estimate 

of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the standard and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.1388 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1388 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

(b) You must not shut down items of 

equipment that are required or utilized 

for compliance with the provisions of 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being, or are otherwise 

required to be, routed to such items of 

equipment. 

(c) Startup begins when the wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnace has any 

raw materials added and reaches 50 

percent of its typical operating 

temperature. Startup ends when molten 

glass begins to flow from the wool 

fiberglass glass-melting furnace. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat 

sources to the glass-melting furnace are 

reduced to begin the glass-melting 

furnace shut down process. Shutdown 

ends when the glass-melting furnace is 

empty or the contents are sufficiently 

viscous to preclude glass flow from the 

glass-melting furnace. 

(e) During periods of startups and 

shutdowns you may demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits in 

§ 63.1382 by keeping records showing 

that your furnace emissions were 

controlled using air pollution control 

devices operated at the parameters 

established by the most recent 

performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard. 

■ 17. Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63 

revised to read as follows: 

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

SUBPART NNN 

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN Explanation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.1(c)(1)–(c)(2) ............................. Applicability After Standard Established.Yes.

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

63.1(c)(5) ....................................... ....................................................... Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.4(b)(1)–(b)(2) ............................ Circumvention ............................... Yes.

63.4(c) ............................................ Fragmentation ............................... Yes.

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

63.5(b)(1) ....................................... Requirements for Existing, Newly 

Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22404 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

SUBPART NNN—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN Explanation 

63.5(f) ............................................. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review.Yes.

63.6(a) ............................................ Compliance with Standards and 

Maintenance Applicability.

Yes.

63.6(b)(1)–(b)(5) ............................ ....................................................... .......................................................

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

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

63.6(c)(1)–(c)(2) ............................. Compliance Dates for Existing 

Sources.

Yes ................................................ § 63.1387 specifies compliance 

dates. 

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

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

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

63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................... General Duty to minimize emissions.No ................................................. See § 63.11382(b) for general 

duty requirement. 

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

requirements. 

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

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

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

(SSM) Plan.

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

63.6(f)(1)–f(3) ................................. SSM exemption ............................ No.

63.6(g) ............................................ Alternative Nonopacity Emission 

Standard.

Yes.

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

63.6(i)(1)–(i)(14) ............................. Extension of Compliance .............. Yes ................................................ § 63.1387 specfies the dates 

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

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

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

63.7(a) ............................................ Performance Test Requirements 

Applicability.

Yes.

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

63.7(c) ............................................ Quality Assurance Program ......... Yes.

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

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

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

63.6(f) ............................................. Use of an alternative test method Yes.

63.7(g)(1) ....................................... Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, 

and Reporting.

Yes.

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

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

63.7(h) ............................................ Waiver of Performance Test ........ 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)(i) .................................... General duty to minimize emissions and CMS operation.No ................................................. See § 63.1382(c) for general duty 

requirement. 

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

Plan for CMS.

No.

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

which refers to SSM plan. SSM 

plans are not required.

63.8(e) ............................................ Performance Evaluation of Continuous Monitoring Systems.No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require 

CMS performance evaluations. 

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

63.8(f)(6) ........................................ Alternative to RATA Test .............. No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require 

CEMS. 

63.8(g)(1) ....................................... Reduction of Monitoring Data ....... Yes.

63.8(g)(2) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require 

COMS or CEMS. 

63.8(g)(3)–(g)(5) ............................ ....................................................... Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 22405 

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

SUBPART NNN—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN Explanation 

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

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

63.9(f) ............................................. Notification of VE/Opacity Test .... No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not include 

VE/opacity standards. 

63.9(g) ............................................ Additional CMS Notifications ........ No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require 

CMS performance evaluation, 

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)(1) ..................................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes ................................................ § 63.1386 includes additional requirements. 

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

duration of startups and shutdowns.

No.

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

for recordkeeping of occurrence 

and duration and actions taken 

during malfunction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.10(c)(5) ..................................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.10(c)(6) ..................................... ....................................................... No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require 

CMS performance specifications. 

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

exceedances and excess emissions.

Yes.

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

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

of malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) ....................... ....................................................... No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require a 

CMS quality control program. 

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

63.10(d)(1) ..................................... General Reporting Requirements Yes ................................................ Additional requirements in 

§ 63.1193. 

63.10(d)(2) ..................................... Performance Test Results ............ Yes.

63.10(d)(3) ..................................... Opacity or VE Observations ......... No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not include 

VE/opacity standards. 

63.10(d)(4) ..................................... Progress Reports .......................... Yes.

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

of malfunctions. 

63.10(e)(1)–(e)(2) .......................... Additional CMS Reports ............... No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require 

CEMS or CMS performance 

evaluations. 

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

63.10(e)(4) ..................................... COMS Data Reports .................... No ................................................. Subpart NNN does not require 

COMS. 

3.10(f) ............................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Yes.

63.11(a) .......................................... Control Device Requirements Applicability.Yes.

63.11(b) .......................................... Flares ............................................ No ................................................. Flares not applicable. 

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

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

63.11(e) .......................................... Alternative Work Practice Requirements.Yes.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

22406 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

SUBPART NNN—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN Explanation 

3.12 ................................................ State Authority and Delegations ... Yes.

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

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

63.15 .............................................. Availability of Information and 

Confidentiality.

Yes.

63.16 .............................................. Performance Track Provisions ..... Yes.

[FR Doc. 2013–07257 Filed 4–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2