[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34278-34299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12788]



[[Page 34277]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-Formed 
Fiberglass Mat Production; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 34278]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6703-5]
RIN 2060-AH89


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is adding wet-formed fiberglass mat production to the 
list of categories of major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 
published under section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to the 
source category schedule for national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP).
    The EPA is, at the same time, proposing the NESHAP for new and 
existing sources at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. 
The HAPs emitted by the facilities subject to the proposed NESHAP 
include three organic HAPs (formaldehyde, methanol, and vinyl acetate). 
Exposure to these HAPs can cause reversible or irreversible adverse 
health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system, 
developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health effects. The EPA 
estimates the proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of HAPs 
from the drying and curing ovens at these facilities by 199 megagrams 
per year (Mg/yr)(219 tons per year or tons/yr), an approximate 74 
percent reduction from the current level of emissions. Under section 
112(c)(5) of the CAA, the wet-formed fiberglass mat production NESHAP 
has a promulgation date of May 26, 2002.
    The proposed NESHAP are based on the Administrator's determination 
that wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities emit several of 
the 188 HAPs listed in the CAA from the various process operations 
found within the industry, and that these facilities can be major 
sources of HAPs. The proposed NESHAP protect the public by requiring 
all wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that are major 
sources to meet emission standards reflecting the application of the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received 
on or before July 25, 2000.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held if requests to speak 
are received by June 12, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in 
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-97-54 at the following address: 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460. A separate copy of the comments should be sent to 
Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-1084.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed rule, contact Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic 
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-1084, e-mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36455758425f575159185c4357587653465718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98ebf9f6ecf1f9fff7b6f2edf9f6d8fde8f9b6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>. For information regarding Method 316, contact 
Ms. Rima N. Howell; Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (MD-
19); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0443, e-mail address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b53544c5e5757154952565a7b5e4b5a155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb7b0a8bab3b3f1adb6b2be9fbaafbef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Commenters wishing to submit 
proprietary information for consideration should clearly distinguish 
such information from other comments and clearly label it 
``Confidential Business Information.'' Submissions containing such 
proprietary information should be sent directly to the following 
address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary 
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. 
Juan Santiago, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill 
Street, Room 740B, Durham, North Carolina 27701. Information covered by 
such a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the 
extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no 
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received 
by EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without 
further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Anyone requesting to present oral testimony or 
attend the public hearing must contact Ms. Tanya Medley at (919) 541-
5422 no later than June 16, 2000. A verbatim transcript of the hearing 
and any written statements will be available for public inspection and 
copying during normal working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center in Washington, DC.
    Docket. Docket A-97-54, containing supporting information used in 
developing the proposed standards, is available at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, 
Waterside Mall, Washington D.C. 20460 and may be inspected from 8 a.m. 
to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of this information may be 
obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Electronic Access and Filing Addresses. The official record for 
this rulemaking has been established under Docket No. A-97-54 
(including comments and data submitted electronically). A public 
version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic 
comments, which does not include any information claimed as 
confidential business information (CBI), is available for inspection 
from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to the EPA's Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center at: ``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8f995d9d6dc95ea95fcd7dbd3ddccf8ddc8d9d5d9d1d496ddc8d996dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d998f4b8b7bdf48bf49db6bab2bcad99bca9b8b4b8b0b5f7bca9b8f7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>.'' Electronic comments must be submitted in 
American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) file format. 
Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 
Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect<Register> Version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format or ASCII 
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be 
identified by the docket number (A-97-54). Electronic comments may be 
filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). The proposed regulatory text will be available 
on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), a network of 
the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The TTN 
is accessible through the Internet at ``TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov''. 
If more information on the TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 
541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
are those industrial facilities that manufacture wet-formed fiberglass 
mat. Wet-formed fiberglass mat production is classified under Standard 
Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3329325, a subset of SIC code 
3329, Pressed and Blown Glass, Not Elsewhere Classified. Regulated 
categories and entities are shown in

[[Page 34279]]

table 1. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by final 
action on this proposal. This table lists the types of entities that 
EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by final action on this 
proposal. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by 
final action on this proposal, carefully examine the applicability 
criteria in section III.A of this preamble and in Sec. 63.2981 of the 
proposed rule. If there are any questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult Mr. Juan Santiago (See 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

                                                       Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                     SIC code                                               Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.............................         3329325   Wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporation by Reference. A request for approval of the 
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Office of the Federal 
Register will be submitted prior to promulgation of this rule for the 
following material: Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A 
Manual of Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (22nd edition, 1995). The procedures in this 
material are used for designing the system for capturing and conveying 
HAP emissions to the control device. The incorporation by reference of 
this publication is expected to be approved by the Director of the 
Office of the Federal Register upon promulgation.
    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. Introduction
    A. Regulatory Background and Addition to Source Category List
    B. Solicitation of Comments
    C. Source of Authority for National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants Development
    D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from this 
source category?
    E. Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Industry Profile and 
Process Description
    F. How were pollution prevention practices considered in the 
development of these proposed NESHAP?
II. What are the requirements of these proposed NESHAP?
    A. Do these proposed NESHAP apply to me?
    B. What emission standards must I meet?
    C. What operating standards must I meet?
    D. What are the performance test and initial compliance 
provisions of these proposed NESHAP?
    E. What monitoring requirements must I meet?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements of these proposed NESHAP?
III. What are the impacts of these proposed NESHAP?
    A. What are the air emission impacts?
    B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
    C. What are the energy impacts?
    D. Are there any additional environmental and health impacts?
    E. What are the cost impacts?
    F. What are the economic impacts?
IV. How were these proposed NESHAP developed?
    A. Selection of Emission Sources
    B. Selection of MACT Floor
    C. Emission Limits
    D. Selection of Test Methods
    E. Selection of Operating Standards and Monitoring Requirements
V. What are the administrative requirements of these proposed 
NESHAP?
    A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    C. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with 
Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Introduction

A. Regulatory Background and Addition to Source Category List

    Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to list each category of major 
and area sources, as appropriate, that emits one or more of the 188 
HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the CAA. The term ``major source'' is 
defined in section 112(a)(1) to mean:

 * * * any stationary source or group of stationary sources located 
within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the 
potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate 10 tons 
per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any 
combination of HAPs * * *

We published an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 
FR 31576). Included on the initial source category list were major 
sources of HAP emissions from the asphalt roofing and processing 
industry.
    During development of the asphalt roofing and processing NESHAP, 
industry representatives alerted us about the existence of the wet-
formed fiberglass mat production industry, and its relationship to the 
asphalt roofing production industry. They indicated to us that wet-
formed fiberglass mat production facilities have the potential to be 
major sources of HAP emissions, and some wet-formed fiberglass mat 
production facilities are collocated with asphalt roofing and 
processing facilities. They expressed the opinion that there should be 
a NESHAP for wet-formed fiberglass mat production developed separately 
from the asphalt roofing and processing industry. We have decided to 
propose a separate NESHAP for wet-formed fiberglass mat production 
because the production processes and pollutant emissions differ from 
those in the asphalt roofing industry. In addition, wet-formed 
fiberglass mat is produced at both stand-alone facilities and those 
collocated with asphalt roofing and processing facilities. The CAA 
provides that we may amend the list anytime. Consequently, wet-formed 
fiberglass mat production is being added to the source category list 
under section 112(c) of the CAA.
    Wet-formed fiberglass mat is the substrate for several asphalt 
roofing products. In wet-formed fiberglass mat production, glass fibers 
are bonded with an organic resin. The mat is formed as the resin is 
dried and cured in heated ovens. The majority of HAP emissions 
associated with wet-formed fiberglass mat production are emitted from 
the drying and curing oven exhaust. Based on HAP emission data obtained 
during the development of this proposed rule, we have determined that 
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities are major sources of 
HAPs. Nine of the 14 facilities (10 of the 15 production lines) control 
the drying and curing oven exhaust emissions. All five of the remaining 
facilities that do not control the drying and curing oven exhaust are 
major sources of HAPs (Docket No. A-97-54).
    Today's action adds wet-formed fiberglass mat production to the 
list of source categories for which MACT standards are to be developed. 
Final standards for this source category are required to be promulgated 
by May 26, 2002.

[[Page 34280]]

B. Solicitation of Comments

    We are seeking full public participation in arriving at final 
decisions and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from 
all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses 
should be submitted with comments to allow us to make maximum use of 
the comments. All comments should be sent according to the information 
given in the ADDRESSES section. Comments on this proposal must be 
submitted on or before the date specified in the DATES section.

C. Source of Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants Development

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to promulgate standards for the 
control of HAP emissions from each source category listed under section 
112(c). The statute requires the standards to reflect the maximum 
degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This 
level of control is commonly referred to as MACT. The MACT standards 
can be based on the emission reductions achievable through application 
of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques including, but 
not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions 
of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, 
or other modifications; (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate 
emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; 
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards 
(including requirements for operator training or certification) as 
provided in section 112(h) of the CAA; or (5) a combination of the 
above (see section 112(d)(2) of the CAA).
    For new sources, MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the 
emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar 
source (see section 112(d)(3) of the CAA). The MACT standards for 
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources. 
However, they cannot be less stringent than the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing 
sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or 
the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with 
fewer than 30 sources.
    In essence, MACT standards are designed to ensure that all major 
sources of air toxic emissions achieve the level of control already 
being achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in 
each category. This approach provides assurance to the public that each 
major source of toxic air pollution will be required to effectively 
control its emissions. At the same time, this approach provides a level 
economic playing field, ensuring that facilities that employ cleaner 
processes and good emission controls are not disadvantaged relative to 
competitors with poorer controls.

D. What Are the Health Effects of Pollutants Emitted From This Source 
Category?

    The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality 
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and 
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (see section 
101(b) of the CAA). The proposed NESHAP would protect public health by 
reducing emissions of HAPs from wet-formed fiberglass mat production 
facilities.
    Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP 
show that formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol are emitted from 
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities (Docket No. A-97-54). 
The proposed emission limits would reduce emissions of formaldehyde, 
vinyl acetate, and methanol emitted from drying and curing ovens. As a 
result of controlling these HAPs, the proposed NESHAP would also reduce 
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Following is a summary 
of the potential health effects caused by exposure to these pollutants.
    Exposure to formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol irritates the 
eyes, skin, and mucous membranes and can cause conjunctivitis, dermal 
inflammation, and respiratory symptoms. Formaldehyde exposure has been 
associated with reproductive effects such as menstrual disorders and 
pregnancy problems in female workers. We have classified formaldehyde 
as Class B1, a probable human carcinogen, on the basis of findings of 
nasal cancer in animal studies and limited human data. Acute exposure 
to vinyl acetate is known to cause irritation of the lungs and nose, 
and irritation or blistering of skin. Exposure to very high levels of 
vinyl acetate can cause dizziness. Data are not sufficient to classify 
vinyl acetate as a potential human carcinogen.
    Acute exposure to methanol (usually by ingestion) is well known to 
cause blindness and severe metabolic acidosis, sometimes leading to 
death. Chronic methanol exposure, including inhalation, may cause 
central nervous system disturbances possibly leading to blindness. 
Methanol exposure has also been linked to developmental effects in 
animals. Data are not sufficient to classify methanol as a potential 
human carcinogen (Docket No. A-97-54).
    The degree of adverse health effects associated with HAP exposure 
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the 
health effects may be experienced are dependent upon: (1) The ambient 
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission 
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and 
duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals 
(e.g., genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyles); 
and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life 
in the environment, and bioaccumulation).
    Formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol are also VOC that are 
precursors to tropospheric ozone formation. Ambient concentrations in 
excess of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone 
can damage lung tissue, reduce lung function, and increase sensitivity 
of the lung to other irritants. Additional information on the health 
effects of ozone are included in the EPA's ``Criteria Document'' (three 
volumes, EPA/600/P-93-004aF through EPA/600/P-93-004cF, July 1996), 
which supports the NAAQS for ozone. Many areas of the country, 
including several in which wet-formed fiberglass mat production 
facilities are located, are not in compliance with the NAAQS for ozone.

E. Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Industry Profile and Process 
Description

    Wet-formed fiberglass mat is currently produced in the United 
States by nine companies operating 14 plants (15 production lines) in 
nine States. These plants may be collocated with asphalt roofing plants 
because wet-formed fiberglass mat can be used as a substrate for 
manufacturing asphalt roofing shingles and roll roofing products.
    Wet-formed fiberglass mat is used as a substrate for asphalt 
shingles and roll roofing, as a reinforcement for reinforced plastic 
composite products (including thermosets and thermoplastics) and for 
cement and gypsum products, and in miscellaneous specialty applications 
such as battery separators and for pipe-wrapping and flooring.
    A typical wet-formed fiberglass mat production line consists of the 
following processes: (1) Preparation of glass fibers;

[[Page 34281]]

(2) formation of fibers into a fiberglass mat; (3) saturation with 
urea-formaldehyde binder solution; (4) curing and drying the binder-
coated fiberglass mat; (5) cooling the mat; and (6) trimming, cutting, 
and packaging.
    Fiberglass mat is manufactured by binding glass fibers with urea-
formaldehyde resin. The glass fibers are mixed with water and 
emulsifiers in large (several thousand gallons) mixing vats to form an 
aqueous slurry of fibers and water. The slurry is then pumped to 
another large vat that acts as a surge tank and then to a third vat 
that is the supply tank for the mat forming machine.
    The mat forming machine consists of a slurry dispenser and moving 
wire screen belt. The wire screen belt carries the glass fiber mat 
throughout the production process. The glass fiber slurry is dispensed 
from a slot onto the screen in a uniform curtain. After the slurry is 
dispensed onto the screen, the screen passes over a vacuum slot into 
which the excess water and emulsion are drawn, leaving only a layer of 
fibers on the screen.
    The mat of fibers then passes under a binder dispenser. An aqueous 
solution of urea-formaldehyde binder is dispensed from a slot or a 
curtain coater onto the mat of fibers in a uniform curtain. Just after 
the binder is dispensed onto the mat, the screen passes over another 
vacuum slot into which the excess binder solution is drawn.
    The mat of fibers and binder then passes into a drying and curing 
oven. This is a multiple-stage oven that uses heated, forced air to 
carry away excess moisture. In the first stage, the moisture is driven 
from the binder. This causes the binder to migrate to the points where 
the glass fibers cross each other. In the second and third stages of 
the oven, the binder cures and hardens. After leaving the oven, the 
finished mat is wound into large rolls and prepared for shipment.
    The information in the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper 
Industry (TAPPI) survey responses (Docket No. A-97-54) and information 
obtained from a single facility that did not respond to the TAPPI 
survey (Docket No. A-97-54) indicate that drying and curing oven 
emissions from 10 of the 15 glass mat production lines are controlled 
by thermal oxidizers. Five facilities for which information is 
available do not have add-on emission controls on either the binder 
application vacuum or the drying and curing oven exhausts. No emission 
control devices other than thermal oxidizers are used on the drying and 
curing oven exhausts in this industry.
    The thermal oxidizers used in this industry operate at temperatures 
that range from about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F) (540 
to 820 degrees Celsius ( deg.C)) with residence times from 0.5 to 4.8 
seconds. Most existing thermal oxidizers are also designed for energy 
recovery. Formaldehyde destruction efficiencies, for those facilities 
for which there are data, range from about 90 percent to greater than 
99 percent.

F. How Were Pollution Prevention Practices Considered in the 
Development of These Proposed NESHAP?

    The format of the proposed NESHAP is a mass emission limit 
(kilograms of formaldehyde per megagram of wet-formed fiberglass mat 
produced) and an equivalent percentage reduction requirement compliance 
option. The mass emission limit allows for the use of pollution 
prevention practices in place of add-on control devices. A potential 
pollution prevention practice could be a process modification to reduce 
the formaldehyde content of binder formulations.

II. What Are the Requirements of These Proposed NESHAP?

A. Do These Proposed NESHAP Apply to Me?

    The proposed NESHAP would apply to each existing and newly 
constructed drying and curing oven located at a wet-formed fiberglass 
mat production facility that is a major source of HAPs or that is 
collocated with a major source. A major source means any source that 
has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of any one HAP or 25 tons/
yr or more of any combination of HAPs. If your facility is determined 
to be an area source, you would not be subject to these proposed 
NESHAP.

B. What Emission Standards Must I Meet?

    The proposed NESHAP regulate emissions of formaldehyde as a 
surrogate for total HAP emissions. Control of formaldehyde will also 
result in control of vinyl acetate and methanol. A mass emission limit 
and a percentage reduction requirement compliance option for 
formaldehyde are proposed for each new and existing drying and curing 
oven. The emission limits are the same for new and existing sources. 
New source and existing source emission standards for the drying and 
curing oven exhaust are a maximum formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03 
kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced 
(0.05 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced) or 
a minimum of 96 percent destruction efficiency of formaldehyde (as 
shown in table 2). You can choose to comply with either the emission 
rate limit or the percent reduction requirement. If you use a thermal 
oxidizer or other control device to achieve the mass emission limit or 
percentage reduction requirement, you must collect and convey the 
emissions from each drying and curing oven to the control device 
according to the procedures specified in chapters 3 and 5 of 
``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.''

   Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Emission Standards for New and Existing Drying and Curing Ovens at Wet-Formed
                                       Fiberglass Mat Manufacturing Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Process                                              Emission limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each existing and new drying and curing oven..............  0.03 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of fiberglass mat
                                                             (0.05 lb of formaldehyde per ton of fiberglass
                                                             mat).
                                                            OR
                                                            96 percent reduction of formaldehyde.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Operating Standards Must I Meet?

    In addition to the emission standards, the proposed NESHAP contain 
specific operating standards, summarized in Table 3. The operating 
standards require you to maintain certain process or control device 
parameters within the levels established during the initial performance 
test. In general, the parameter values or ranges that must be 
maintained, must be approved by the

[[Page 34282]]

Administrator based on the performance test demonstrations. You must 
reference the operating standards in the operating permit that you are 
required to obtain under 40 CFR part 70.
    You must also submit for the Administrator's approval an 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring (OMM) plan for the facility. 
The OMM plan specifies the parameters that must be monitored, how they 
will be monitored, and the corrective actions to follow whenever a 
monitored parameter deviates from the operating standards. You must 
also reference the OMM plan in your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit.

                      Table 3.--Summary of Operating Standards for New and Existing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Affected source                 Monitor type/operation/process             Operating Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drying and curing ovens..............  Resin free-formaldehyde content......  Use a resin with a free-
                                                                               formaldehyde content no greater
                                                                               than that of the resin used
                                                                               during the performance test, as
                                                                               determined by the resin purchase
                                                                               specification or test method.
                                       Binder formulation formaldehyde        Use a binder with a formaldehyde
                                        content.                               content no greater than that of
                                                                               the binder formulation used
                                                                               during the performance test.
                                       Product urea-formaldehyde resin        Do not manufacture a product with
                                        solids content.                        a urea-formaldehyde resin solids
                                                                               content per ton of product higher
                                                                               than that of the product made
                                                                               during the performance test.
                                       Loss-on-ignition.....................  Do not exceed the loss-on-ignition
                                                                               value of the product made during
                                                                               the performance test.
                                       Solids content of urea-formaldehyde    Do not exceed the solids content
                                        resin.                                 of the urea-formaldehyde resin
                                                                               used in the product made during
                                                                               the performance test.
Drying and curing ovens controlled by  Thermal oxidizer operating             Maintain the average temperature
 a thermal oxidizer.                    temperature.                           for each 3-hour period at or
                                                                               above the average operating
                                                                               temperature achieved during the
                                                                               performance test.
                                       Thermal oxidizer operation...........  Operate the thermal oxidizer in
                                                                               accordance with the operation,
                                                                               maintenance, and monitoring plan;
                                                                               annually inspect the thermal
                                                                               oxidizer for structural and
                                                                               design integrity.
Drying and curing ovens controlled by  Process or control device parameters.  Maintain the process or control
 modifications or a control device                                             device within the ranges
 other than a thermal oxidizer.                                                established during the
                                                                               performance test.
All affected sources.................  Corrective action....................  Initiate corrective action within
                                                                               1 hour of an established
                                                                               operating parameter excursion and
                                                                               complete and document action per
                                                                               operation, maintenance and
                                                                               monitoring plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the operating parameters deviate from the values or ranges 
specified in your OMM plan, you would be in violation of the standards. 
Following the performance test, whenever a monitored parameter deviates 
from the established operating standards, you must initiate the 
corrective actions specified in the OMM plan within 1 hour. You must 
complete the corrective actions in an expeditious manner and implement 
them as specified in your OMM plan.
    If you use a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance with the 
emission standards, you must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the 
average operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall 
below the average temperature established during the performance test. 
Additionally, an annual inspection of the thermal oxidizer is required 
to ensure that the structural and design integrity of the combustion 
chamber is maintained in the same condition as during the performance 
test. If you use process modifications or an add-on control device 
other than a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance with the emission 
standards, you must maintain the process or control device parameter(s) 
within the required ranges that you established during the performance 
test.
    The operating standards also require you to maintain the resin 
free-formaldehyde content, the binder formulation formaldehyde content, 
the solids content of the urea-formaldehyde resin, the urea-
formaldehyde resin solids content of the product manufactured, and the 
loss-on-ignition value of the wet-formed fiberglass mat produced within 
the levels you established during a compliance test and as specified in 
your OMM plan.

D. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Provisions of 
These Proposed NESHAP?

    You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the emission limits. The performance test must be 
performed initially and every 5 years following the initial performance 
test. A performance test is also required to change the value or range 
of an operating standard. Under the proposed NESHAP, you must conduct 
the performance test while operating at or near the maximum production 
rate and while making wet-formed fiberglass mat with the highest urea-
formaldehyde resin solids content, loss-on-ignition value, using the 
resin with the highest free-formaldehyde content, and using the binder 
with the highest formaldehyde content. You must measure formaldehyde 
emissions as the average of three test runs using EPA Reference Method 
316 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, ``Sampling and Analysis for 
Formaldehyde from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool 
Fiberglass Industries.'' This proposed method was published in the 
March 31, 1997 Federal Register (63 FR 15288). You must demonstrate 
compliance with either the mass emission limit or the percentage 
reduction requirement using the instructions and equations contained in 
the performance test requirement section of this proposed NESHAP.
    During the performance tests, you must continuously monitor the 
thermal oxidizer operating temperature and record the average 
temperature in 15-minute blocks during each 1-hour test run. After 
completion of the three required test runs, you must determine the 3-
hour average operating temperature of the thermal oxidizer. If you use 
process modifications or an add-on control device other than a thermal 
oxidizer to comply with the

[[Page 34283]]

emission standards, you must determine the appropriate control device 
or process monitoring parameters to indicate whether compliance is 
being achieved. You must include the process or control device 
parameters, monitoring frequency, and the averaging periods in your 
site-specific test plan required by the 40 CFR part 63 general 
provisions and approved by the permitting agency prior to conducting 
your initial performance test. You may perform multiple tests to 
establish the least restrictive value or operating range for the 
selected parameters that still demonstrate compliance.
    During the performance tests, you must also monitor and record the 
average hourly wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate prior to edge 
trimming, the free-formaldehyde content and the solids content of the 
urea-formaldehyde resin used to produce the mat, the formaldehyde 
content of the binder used to produce the mat, the urea-formaldehyde 
solids content per ton of product, and the loss-on-ignition value of 
the product manufactured during each of the three test runs.
    If you use a thermal oxidizer to comply with these NESHAP, you must 
conduct a performance evaluation for the thermal oxidizer temperature 
monitoring device prior to the initial performance test to determine 
compliance. The evaluation must be conducted according to the 
procedures in 40 CFR 63.8(e) of the NESHAP general provisions. The 
temperature monitoring device must meet the following performance and 
equipment specifications: (1) The temperature monitoring device must be 
installed at the exit of the combustion zone of each thermal oxidizer; 
(2) the recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the 
average temperature; and (3) the reference method must be a National 
Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated reference 
thermocouple-potentiometer system or an alternate reference, subject to 
the approval of the Administrator.
    The proposed NESHAP would allow facilities subject to the NESHAP to 
conduct short-term experimental production runs, where the formaldehyde 
content or other process parameters deviate from the levels established 
during previous performance tests, without conducting additional 
performance tests. You must apply for approval from the Administrator 
or delegated State agency to conduct such experimental production runs. 
The application must be made at least 30 days prior to conducting the 
run. The application would include information on the nature and 
duration of the test runs including plans to perform emissions testing. 
Such experimental production runs are important to industry and allow 
them to develop new products, improve existing products, and determine 
the effects on emissions of process modifications being considered, 
such as binder formulation.

E. What Monitoring Requirements Must I Meet?

    Continuous compliance is demonstrated after the initial performance 
test and between subsequent performance tests by monitoring emission 
control devices and process operating parameters. The allowable 
monitoring parameter values or ranges are determined during your 
initial performance test and must be approved by the Administrator.
    If a thermal oxidizer is used to achieve compliance with the 
emission standards, you must monitor the operating temperature of the 
thermal oxidizer. If you use a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance 
with the proposed emission standards, you must: (1) Install, operate, 
calibrate, and maintain a device that continuously measures the 
operating temperature of each thermal oxidizer; and (2) determine and 
record the temperature in 15-minute and 3-hour block averages. This is 
typically done using a thermocouple (a standard feature on most thermal 
oxidizers) and a chart recorder or data logger. You are also required 
to monitor the resin free-formaldehyde content, the binder formulation 
formaldehyde content, the solids content of the urea-formaldehyde 
resin, the urea-formaldehyde resin solids content of the product 
manufactured, and the loss-on-ignition value of the wet-formed 
fiberglass mat produced. Because these process parameters affect the 
amount of HAPs emitted from the drying and curing oven, you must 
monitor them to ensure that operation of the production process is 
consistent with the conditions of the performance test, and that the 
production process does not vary in such a way as to increase HAP 
emissions from the drying and curing oven exhaust.
    If process modifications or a control device other than a thermal 
oxidizer is used to achieve compliance with the emission standards, you 
must monitor the parameters that were established during the 
performance test and approved by the Administrator.
    The proposed NESHAP contain provisions that would allow you to 
change the thermal oxidizer operating temperature, add-on control 
devices, and process parameter values from those established using the 
initial and 5-year performance tests. These provisions would allow you 
to make process changes or to demonstrate that different monitoring 
parameter values would more appropriately demonstrate compliance with 
the proposed emission standards. You may revise the monitoring or 
process parameter values by conducting additional performance tests to 
verify compliance at the revised operating levels. For example, if you 
intend to use a urea-formaldehyde resin with a higher free-formaldehyde 
or solids content, produce a wet-formed fiberglass mat with a higher 
urea-formaldehyde resin solids content, or produce a product with a 
higher loss-on-ignition value, you must perform additional performance 
tests to verify compliance at the increased operating or process 
parameters. You must request and obtain approval from the Administrator 
to conduct these additional performance tests and must submit 
performance data that justify and support the expanded parameter ranges 
before the facility is allowed to operate under the revised monitoring 
parameters.

F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements 
of These Proposed NESHAP?

    All notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the 
40 CFR part 63 general provisions, as well as additional requirements, 
apply to wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing facilities. The 
notification and reporting requirements include, but are not limited 
to: (1) Initial notification of applicability of the rule, notification 
of the dates for conducting the performance test, and notification of 
compliance status; (2) a report of performance test results; (3) a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; (4) reports of any startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction events that occur; and (5) reports of excess 
emissions (i.e., monitoring parameter exceedances) and continuous 
monitoring system performance. When no exceedances occur, you must 
submit semiannual reports indicating that no exceedances have occurred 
during the period. If exceedances or deviations from established 
monitoring parameters occur, the frequency of submitting the excess 
emission reports becomes quarterly until a request to return to 
semiannual reporting is approved by the Administrator. You cannot 
submit the request to reduce the frequency of the reporting period 
until the affected

[[Page 34284]]

source's excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance 
reports remain continually within the established parameter ranges for 
1 full year.
    You must maintain records of the following, as applicable: (1) 
Thermal oxidizer operating temperature; (2) process parameters for 
drying and curing ovens that comply with the emission standards using 
process modifications or an add-on control device other than a thermal 
oxidizer; (3) free-formaldehyde content of the resin; (4) binder 
formulation formaldehyde content; (5) loss-on-ignition value of the 
wet-formed fiberglass mat produced; (6) urea-formaldehyde resin solids 
content per ton of the wet-formed fiberglass mat produced; (7) average 
hourly wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate; (8) the date and time 
an exceedance commenced if a parameter monitoring exceedance occurs, 
the date and time corrective actions were initiated and completed, a 
description of the cause of the exceedance, and a description of the 
corrective actions taken; (9) the approved OMM plan; (10) maintenance 
and inspections performed on control devices; and (11) any other 
information required to be recorded in the general provisions.
    The NESHAP general provisions require that records be maintained 
for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You would retain the 
records onsite for at least 2 years but may retain the records offsite 
for the remaining 3 years. The records must be readily available and in 
a form suitable for efficient inspection and review. The files may be 
retained on paper, on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, on 
computer disks, or on magnetic tape. Reports may be made on paper or on 
a labeled computer disk using commonly available and compatible 
computer software.

III. What Are the Impacts of These Proposed NESHAP?

A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?

    At the current level of control, nationwide emissions of HAPs from 
the 14 facilities in the industry are about 268 Mg/yr (295 tons/yr). 
Under the proposed NESHAP, it is expected that thermal oxidizers will 
be added to the five uncontrolled drying and curing ovens, and that 
existing thermal oxidizers will be replaced with new units for three 
out of the ten controlled drying and curing ovens. This would result in 
an estimated reduction in nationwide HAP emissions of 199 Mg/yr (219 
tons/yr) (Docket No. A-97-54).
    Formaldehyde emissions from wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing 
lines account for about 65 percent of the baseline HAP emissions. 
Methanol emissions account for approximately 30 percent, with vinyl 
acetate comprising the remaining 5 percent of the baseline HAP 
emissions. Estimated nationwide emissions of formaldehyde from existing 
wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines are 174 Mg/yr (192 tons/yr) 
at the current level of control. Implementing the proposed NESHAP will 
reduce nationwide formaldehyde emissions from existing sources by about 
130 Mg/yr (143 tons/yr) (Docket No. A-97-54), and combined emissions of 
vinyl acetate and methanol will be reduced by 70 Mg/yr (77 tons/yr).

B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?

    Because compliance with the proposed NESHAP is based on the use of 
thermal oxidizers, no water pollution or solid waste impacts would 
result from the proposed NESHAP.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    Thermal oxidizers require electrical energy to operate fans. 
Additional electrical energy requirements are estimated to be 4,260 
megawatt hours per year (MW-hr/yr). An additional 275,000 million 
British thermal units per year (Btu/yr) of natural gas are estimated to 
be required for eight additional thermal oxidizers that would be added 
to existing sources. The total additional energy (electricity and 
natural gas) required as a result of the proposed NESHAP is 290 billion 
Btu/yr in the fifth year following promulgation of the NESHAP (Docket 
No. A-97-54). No new glass mat production lines are projected in the 5 
years after promulgation; therefore, no increased energy requirement is 
expected for new glass mat production lines under the proposed NESHAP.

D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?

    Reducing HAP emissions will lower occupational HAP and VOC exposure 
levels. The operation of thermal oxidizers may increase occupational 
noise levels in the five facilities that currently do not control HAP 
emissions.

E. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    Cost impacts of the proposed NESHAP for drying and curing ovens 
were analyzed using site-specific information included in the TAPPI 
survey responses coupled with procedures from the ``OAQPS Cost Manual'' 
(Docket No. A-97-54). For some facilities where site-specific data 
necessary for estimating costs (e.g., a vent flow rate) were not 
available, average factors developed from industry data were used to 
estimate the missing data.
    The total capital costs to achieve the proposed NESHAP were 
estimated to be $5,272,000. These capital cost impacts arise from the 
purchase and installation of eight thermal oxidizers--five thermal 
oxidizers for the five facilities without existing controls and three 
thermal oxidizers for three facilities that must replace existing 
thermal oxidizers that cannot meet the proposed NESHAP. The average 
capital costs of installing a new thermal oxidizer is $658,000 per 
oxidizer. The capital costs estimate to install a new thermal oxidizer 
to achieve compliance includes the cost of auxiliary burners, 
combustion chambers, primary heat exchangers, weather-tight housing and 
insulation, a fan, flow and temperature controls, a stack, and 
structural supports.
    Ten of the 15 wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines have 
existing thermal oxidizers. We have formaldehyde emissions data for 
five of the existing thermal oxidizers. Based on an evaluation of the 
emissions data, four of these five thermal oxidizers are already 
achieving the formaldehyde control level required by the proposed 
NESHAP. Therefore, no thermal oxidizer capital costs to comply with the 
proposed NESHAP were estimated for these four facilities. The fifth 
facility controls both the drying and curing oven exhaust and the 
binder application vacuum exhaust. Since this facility is not achieving 
the formaldehyde control level required by the proposed NESHAP, the 
cost of a new thermal oxidizer was estimated for this facility. The 
thermal oxidizer cost estimate is based on the flow rate from the 
drying and curing oven exhaust only since the proposed NESHAP does not 
require control of the binder application vacuum exhaust.
    No formaldehyde emissions data are available for the remaining five 
existing thermal oxidizers. Three facilities have thermal oxidizers 
operating at temperatures and residence times that are as high as those 
that have achieved the proposed formaldehyde control level. Therefore, 
we expect that these three facilities will be able to comply with the 
proposed NESHAP using their existing thermal oxidizers. No increases in 
capital or annual costs were estimated for these facilities. The two 
remaining thermal oxidizers have temperatures or residence times lower 
than those at the facilities that are achieving the proposed control 
levels. Capital costs were estimated to replace

[[Page 34285]]

these two thermal oxidizers with new thermal oxidizers that are 
designed to meet the proposed NESHAP.
    The proposed monitoring requirements for the thermal oxidizer 
operating temperature are not current industry practice and are 
expected to impose additional costs on facilities with existing thermal 
oxidizers. To estimate the impact of the additional monitoring 
equipment (i.e., a data logging system), a cost of $7,000 ($1,000 for 
each of the seven facilities with an existing thermal oxidizer that is 
achieving the proposed NESHAP) was included in the capital cost 
estimate (Docket No. A-97-54). No additional capital costs were 
estimated for monitoring equipment for the new thermal oxidizers since 
temperature monitors and recording devices are standard equipment and 
are included in the cost estimates for new thermal oxidizers.
    The total annualized cost of the proposed NESHAP for eight new 
thermal oxidizers is about $2,414,000. The average annual cost for a 
typical facility that installs a new thermal oxidizer is $302,000. The 
annualized cost estimate includes the cost of operation, maintenance, 
supervisory labor, maintenance materials, utilities, administrative 
charges, taxes, insurance, and capital recovery.

F. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market 
response of the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry to the 
proposed emission standards and to determine the economic effects that 
may result from the proposed NESHAP. As discussed above, 14 facilities 
owned by nine different companies produce wet-formed fiberglass mat 
domestically. These facilities may potentially be affected by the 
proposed NESHAP.
    The estimated nationwide annualized cost of the proposed NESHAP is 
$1.595 million. This cost estimate represents approximately 0.069 
percent of the 1995 sales revenues for domestically produced wet-formed 
fiberglass mat. Based upon this estimate, it is reasonable to assume 
that market price increases and production decreases resulting from the 
proposed NESHAP are likely to be very small. Thus, we conclude that the 
proposed NESHAP is not likely to have a significant economic impact on 
the wet-formed fiberglass mat industry as a whole or on secondary 
markets such as the labor market and foreign trade.
    We performed a streamlined economic analysis to determine facility-
specific impacts. The facility-specific impacts are examined by 
calculating the ratio of the estimated annualized costs of emission 
controls for each facility to the estimated revenues per facility 
(i.e., a cost-to-sales ratio) to assess the likelihood of facility 
closures and employment impacts. Cost-to-sales ratios refer to the 
change in the cost of emission controls divided by the sales revenue of 
wet-formed fiberglass mat, the goods produced in the process for which 
additional pollution control is required. This ratio can be estimated 
for either individual firms or as an average for some set of firms such 
as affected small firms. While it has different significance for 
different market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential 
impact. If costs for the individual (or group of) firms are completely 
passed onto the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, the ratio is 
an estimate of the price change (in percentage form after multiplying 
the ratio by 100). If costs are completely absorbed by the producer, 
this ratio is an estimate of changes in pretax profits (in percentage 
form after multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of cost-to-
sales ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the 
market, and profit-to-sales ratios are among the obvious factors that 
may influence the significance of any particular cost-to-sales ratio 
for an individual facility.
    For these proposed NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding 1 
percent was determined to be an initial indicator of the potential for 
a significant facility impact. Each of the 14 facilities affected by 
the proposed NESHAP has cost-to-sales ratios of less than 1 percent of 
sales. Therefore, the facility-specific impacts are not considered to 
be significant for any facility affected by the proposed NESHAP. No 
facility is likely to close as a result of the proposed NESHAP. 
Facilities in the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry are 
likely to increase the price charged for the product in response to 
market price changes, to absorb the costs with no price increase, or to 
respond with a combination of these alternatives. The economic impacts 
to consumers and producers of wet-formed fiberglass mat are anticipated 
to be minimal. The generally small scale of the impacts suggests that 
there will also be no significant impacts on markets for the products 
made using wet-formed fiberglass mat. For more information, consult the 
economic impact report entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis for the 
Proposed National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants from 
the Production of Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat,'' January 1999 (Docket No. 
A-97-54).

IV. How Were These Proposed NESHAP Developed?

A. Selection of Emission Sources

    In the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry, HAPs are 
emitted from two processes: binder application processes and drying and 
curing processes. For the reasons described below, we selected the 
drying and curing processes at new and existing wet-formed fiberglass 
mat production lines for control under the proposed NESHAP.
    The drying and curing oven drives off moisture remaining on the 
fibers and sets the binder using heated air. Fans are used to draw hot 
air through the mat within each of the oven zones; the hot air may be 
recycled within each zone to conserve energy. Emissions of 
formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol result from vaporization of 
volatile compounds in the binder. Emissions from ten of the 15 drying 
and curing ovens on wet-formed fiberglass manufacturing lines are 
controlled by thermal oxidizers. Emissions from the remaining five 
ovens are uncontrolled.
    The emissions from the drying and curing ovens account for 
approximately 90 percent of the total HAP emissions from wet-formed 
fiberglass mat production facilities. Although one facility controls 
the vent gases from the binder application vacuum exhaust along with 
the drying and curing oven exhaust, we do not consider the control of 
the binder application vacuum exhaust at this facility to represent 
MACT for new sources. When the binder application vacuum exhaust is 
controlled using an existing thermal oxidizer designed to control only 
the drying and curing oven exhaust, the overall HAP reduction achieved 
by the thermal oxidizer is decreased (Docket No. A-97-54). Introducing 
the binder application vacuum exhaust into an existing thermal oxidizer 
decreases the performance of the thermal oxidizer because of the 
decreased residence time in the thermal oxidizer and the high moisture 
content of the binder application vacuum exhaust. No binder application 
vacuum exhausts are controlled using stand-alone thermal oxidizers. In 
addition, the costs of controlling the binder application vacuum 
exhaust by requiring a stand-alone thermal oxidizer would be 
unreasonably high. For these reasons, we propose to regulate HAP 
emissions at the MACT floor only from the drying and curing oven 
processes.

[[Page 34286]]

B. Selection of MACT Floor

    After identifying the MACT floors for new and existing sources, we 
must investigate regulatory alternatives. Regulatory alternatives are 
different levels of emissions control, equal to or more stringent than 
the MACT floor levels. Information about the industry is analyzed to 
project national impacts (which include HAP emission reduction levels 
and cost, energy, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) 
and to select the regulatory alternative that best reflects MACT. The 
selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the 
control level must be achievable and reasonable in the Administrator's 
judgement considering cost, non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. The objective is to achieve the 
maximum degree of emissions reduction without imposing unreasonable 
impacts (see section 112(d)(2) of the CAA). The regulatory alternatives 
and emission limits selected for new and existing sources may be 
different because of different MACT floors.
    In establishing the MACT standards, we may distinguish among 
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory 
when there are significant differences among the classes or 
subcategories (see section 112(d)(1) of the CAA). For the wet-formed 
fiberglass mat industry, we examined the processes, the process 
operations, and other factors to determine if separate classes of 
units, operations, or other criteria have an effect on air emissions or 
their controllability that would justify subcategories. Because all the 
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities use similar processes 
and emit the same pollutants, there is no basis for establishing 
subcategories. Therefore, we decided to regulate wet-formed fiberglass 
mat production as one source category.
    Because the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry has fewer 
than 30 sources, the MACT floor for existing sources is based on the 
average of the best-performing five sources. Nine facilities (10 
production lines) of the 14 facilities (15 production lines) use a 
thermal oxidizer to control HAP emissions from the drying and curing 
oven exhaust. Emission reductions achieved by thermal oxidizers 
represent the best emissions control technology achieved by sources 
subject to the proposed standards. Thus, the MACT floor for existing 
sources is the level of control achieved by a thermal oxidizer.
    The new source MACT floor is based on the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Because the 
best-controlled drying and curing oven uses a thermal oxidizer and no 
more effective control technology than thermal oxidation has been 
achieved to control gaseous HAPs, this is also the MACT floor level of 
control for new sources.
    One facility currently controls the emissions from the binder 
application vacuum exhaust using a thermal oxidizer originally designed 
to control only the drying and curing oven exhaust. Because the 
existing thermal oxidizer was not designed to control the binder 
application vacuum exhaust along with the drying and curing oven 
exhaust, a lower overall HAP reduction is achieved at this facility 
than by facilities controlling only the drying and curing oven exhaust. 
The overall HAP level of control is compromised due to the decreased 
residence time in the thermal oxidizer and the high moisture content of 
the binder application vacuum exhaust. Therefore, because it is not the 
best controlled source, we do not consider the control of the binder 
application vacuum exhaust at this facility to represent the MACT floor 
for new sources.
    Currently, we are not aware of any available controls that are 
better than a thermal oxidizer for controlling gaseous HAP emissions at 
wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines. We considered controlling 
the binder application vacuum exhaust emissions in addition to the 
drying and curing oven exhaust emissions. We have determined that 
controlling the binder application vacuum exhaust emissions with a 
stand-alone thermal oxidizer was the only available beyond-the-floor 
option for existing sources. The incremental cost of controlling the 
binder application vacuum exhaust with a dedicated thermal oxidizer is 
approximately $39,200/Mg ($35,700/ton) of HAP reduced (Docket No. A-97-
54). As discussed above, it is not possible to combine the binder 
application vacuum exhaust with the drying and curing oven exhaust at 
existing facilities without decreasing the performance of the existing 
thermal oxidizer. We did not select this control scenario because it 
achieves a lower overall HAP reduction.
    As with existing sources, the only option more stringent than the 
MACT floor level of control for new sources is control of the binder 
application vacuum exhaust in addition to controlling the drying and 
curing oven exhaust. For new sources, a thermal oxidizer could be 
designed to handle both emission sources. Therefore, for this analysis, 
we assumed that a single thermal oxidizer would be used to control both 
the drying and curing oven exhaust and the binder application vacuum 
exhaust. This assumption was made since controlling the drying and 
curing oven exhaust and the binder application vacuum exhaust in 
separate thermal oxidizers would be more expensive than a single 
thermal oxidizer for both emission sources (Docket No. A-97-54).
    The estimated incremental cost for new sources to control both the 
drying and curing oven exhaust and the binder application vacuum 
exhaust with one thermal oxidizer is approximately $12,800/Mg ($11,600/
ton) of HAP reduced. The new source control cost estimates are based on 
a representative wet-formed fiberglass mat production facility 
controlling both the drying and curing oven exhaust and the binder 
application vacuum exhaust with a single thermal oxidizer (Docket No. 
A-97-54). Based on this evaluation, we concluded that the cost of 
controlling the binder application vacuum exhaust at new sources is 
unreasonable at this time.
    For each of the cases evaluated above, we did not identify emission 
control technologies or control of additional emission sources that 
would reduce emissions to a level below the MACT floor without imposing 
costs which we concluded are unreasonable at this time. Therefore, we 
are proposing emission limits at the MACT floor level of control.

C. Emission Limits

    We have performance data for five facilities in this industry that 
use thermal oxidizers to control drying and curing oven exhaust 
streams. Table 4 summarizes the available formaldehyde emissions data 
from these facilities. However, data from only four thermal oxidizers 
were used to determine the proposed emission limits. The performance of 
the thermal oxidizer at the fifth facility was not considered 
representative of the MACT floor level of control. This facility 
controls the emissions from the binder application vacuum exhaust using 
a thermal oxidizer originally designed to control only the emissions 
from the drying and curing oven exhaust. Because the binder application 
vacuum exhaust is a cooler and more dilute stream than the drying and 
curing oven exhaust, the residence time in the combustion chamber is 
decreased and HAP destruction efficiency is reduced. Therefore, data 
from plant E in table 4 were not used to determine emission limits for 
drying and curing ovens.

[[Page 34287]]



        Table 4.--Summary of Formaldehyde Emission Test Results on Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Lines for Drying and Curing Oven Exhaust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average formaldehyde emissions <SUP>a</SUP>
                                                                               -------------------------------------------------------     Calculated
                Plant                       Thermal oxidizer parameters <SUP>b</SUP>              Uncontrolled                Controlled            control device
                                                                               -------------------------------------------------------   efficiency (%
                                                                                   kg/Mg        lb/ton         kg/Mg        lb/ton        destruction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................................  1500  deg.F, 1.25 s RT                         1.972         3.945        0.0065        0.013                99.7
B....................................  1500  deg.F, 1 s RT                            0.415         0.830        0.0018        0.0037               99.5
C....................................  1350  deg.F, 0.75 s RT                         0.296         0.591        0.0035        0.0070               98.8
D....................................  1400  deg.F, 1.2 s RT                          0.590         1.18         0.02          0.04                 96.4
E <SUP>c</SUP>..................................  1500  deg.F, 0.6 s RT                          0.970         1.94         0.095         0.19                90.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission units are kg (lb) of formaldehyde per Mg (ton) of fiberglass mat product.
\b\ RT = Retention time.
\c\ This facility also controls the binder application vacuum exhaust with the thermal oxidizer that was originally designed to control only the drying
  and curing oven exhaust. Therefore, this thermal oxidizer was not considered representative of the MACT floor level of control.

    The controlled emission rates of the four thermal oxidizers that 
represent the MACT floor level of control range from 0.0018 to 0.02 kg/
Mg (0.0037 to 0.04 lb/ton) and the destruction efficiencies range from 
99.7 to 96.4 percent efficiency. We believe that the differences in the 
performance achieved by the four thermal oxidizers are due to 
differences in operating temperature, residence time, combustion 
chamber design, and variations in uncontrolled emissions that occur in 
this industry. Considering these variables, we consider the performance 
of the four well-designed and -operated thermal oxidizers to represent 
the MACT floor level of control. Based on the data from all four 
sources with well-designed and -operated thermal oxidizers, and 
considering the variability in performance of a thermal oxidizer 
representative of the MACT floor level of control, we have selected a 
mass emission limit of 0.03 kg/Mg as the standard for new and existing 
sources. The 0.03 kg/Mg mass emission limit selected is somewhat higher 
that the short-term test result of 0.02 kg/Mg for the fourth thermal 
oxidizer. However, the selected mass emission limit allows for long-
term process and control equipment variability.
    We are also establishing an alternative percentage reduction 
efficiency standard to address situations in which a facility cannot 
achieve the 0.03 kg/Mg mass emission limit due to process variations 
while operating technology representative of the MACT floor level of 
control. Considering the data from all four of the sources with well-
designed and -operated thermal oxidizers representative of the MACT 
floor level of control, and considering the variability in performance 
of a thermal oxidizer representative of the MACT floor level of 
control, we have selected a 96 percent destruction efficiency as the 
alternative standard. Sources subject to these emission standards would 
be allowed to demonstrate compliance by either meeting a mass emission 
limit of 0.03 kg/Mg (0.05 lb/ton) of product or achieving a 96 percent 
destruction efficiency. For example, a facility with a high inlet 
formaldehyde concentration may not be able to achieve the mass emission 
limit but could comply with the percentage reduction.

D. Selection of Test Methods

    Under the proposed NESHAP, you must conduct a performance test 
using formaldehyde as a surrogate measure for all organic HAPs. You 
must measure formaldehyde emissions using EPA Reference Method 316 or 
any other alternative method that has been approved by the 
Administrator under Sec. 63.7(f) of the general provisions.
    The EPA Reference Method 316, ``Sampling and Analysis for 
Formaldehyde Emissions from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and 
Wool Fiberglass Industries,'' is a manual test method that measures 
formaldehyde by spectrophotometry using the modified pararosaniline 
method. The method was validated at a mineral wool manufacturing 
facility, which has been determined to be a similar source, according 
to the procedures in EPA Validation Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A. In Method 316, gases are withdrawn isokinetically from an 
emission source and are collected in high-purity water. Formaldehyde 
present in the emissions is highly soluble in water. Formaldehyde in 
the sample reacts with acidic pararosaniline and sodium sulfite, 
forming a purple chromophore. The intensity of the purple color, 
measured spectrophotometrically, provides a measure of the formaldehyde 
concentration in the sample.
    Using the results of the performance tests, you would use the 
equations and procedures in the rule to convert the formaldehyde 
emission rate into either a kg/Mg (lb/ton) of product emission rate or 
a percentage removal value. Appendix A to the proposed standards 
contains a method for determining the free-formaldehyde content of 
urea-formaldehyde resins. Appendix B to the proposed standards contains 
a method for determining the loss-on-ignition of the product. You must 
monitor these parameters to ensure compliance with the standards 
between performance tests.

E. Selection of Operating Standards and Monitoring Requirements

    We believe that the operating standards and monitoring requirements 
discussed in sections II.C and II.E, respectively, will provide 
sufficient information needed to determine continuing compliance or 
identify operating problems at the source. At the same time, the 
provisions are not labor intensive, do not require expensive or complex 
equipment, and do not require burdensome recordkeeping. For example, 
temperature monitoring and recording equipment are standard features on 
thermal oxidizers. Resin free-formaldehyde content is a standard 
purchase specification for resin. Finally, the solids content of the 
urea-formaldehyde resins, the urea-formaldehyde solids content, the 
binder formulation formaldehyde content, and loss-on-ignition value of 
the product manufactured are monitored and recorded as part of normal 
product quality control procedures.

V. What Are the Administrative Requirements of These Proposed 
NESHAP?

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to

[[Page 34288]]

review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is, 
therefore, not subject to OMB review. However, an economic analysis of 
the proposed NESHAP was prepared and is available in the docket (Docket 
A-97-54).

B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and 
it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety 
risks.

C. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
This determination has been made since none of the affected facilities 
under this proposed rule are owned or operated by State or local 
governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 
do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State and local 
officials in developing the proposed rule.

D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the EPA's 
prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, 
a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting 
the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No affected facilities are 
owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this proposed rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and

[[Page 34289]]

adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, it must have developed, under 
section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with 
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 
regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The total nationwide capital cost for the 
proposed standard is estimated at $5.3 million; the annualized 
nationwide cost is estimated at $2.4 million. Thus, today's proposed 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statue unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that 
has less than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any non-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have 
determined that only two of the nine companies producing wet-formed 
fiberglass mat are small businesses. One of these small businesses is 
not anticipated to incur emission control costs because it already has 
controls in place which should achieve the MACT emission levels. 
Therefore, only one small firm in the wet-formed fiberglass mat 
production industry is expected to incur emission control costs as a 
result of the regulation. This small business is expected to incur 
control costs that represent 0.3441 percent of current sales revenues, 
a cost-to-sales ratio substantially below 1 percent (the criterion 
established as a first indicator of the potential for significant 
impact). As a result of the increased costs of emission controls, this 
small entity in the affected industry will likely increase the price of 
its product in response to a market change in price, will absorb the 
cost increase with no price increase, or will respond with a 
combination of these responses. Since the estimated costs as a 
percentage of sales are relatively minimal, it is anticipated that the 
regulation will not have a significant impact on this company's 
profitability.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities by 
providing flexibility by offering a choice of compliance and monitoring 
options. Compliance options include mass emission limits or percent 
reduction standards. Compliance with the proposed standard can be 
achieved through the use of a thermal oxidizer or other control device. 
Pollution prevention practices, such as process modifications, are also 
included in the proposed rule. We continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 
____), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Collection 
Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 
DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The information requirements contained in the proposed NESHAP are 
necessary to determine initial and continuous compliance with the 
emission standards. The proposed information requirements include the 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP 
general provisions, authorized under section 114 of the CAA, which are 
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission 
standards. All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule does not require any 
notifications or reports beyond the minimum required by the general 
provisions. Proposed subpart HHHH requires additional records of 
information specific to the wet-formed fiberglass mat production 
industry which are needed to determine compliance with the rule.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection is estimated at 2,983 labor hours per year at an annual cost 
of $98,183. This estimate includes an initial performance test and 
report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation of a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any 
event in which the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual 
excess emissions reports; notifications; the operations, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan; and recordkeeping. The annualized capital cost 
associated with monitoring requirements is estimated at $2,300.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, 
verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing, and providing 
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to 
a collection of information; search existing data sources; complete and 
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB

[[Page 34290]]

control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated 
collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, 
Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: 
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Refer to ICR 1964.01 in any correspondence. 
Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 
30 and 60 days after May 26, 2000. A comment to OMB is most likely to 
have its full effect if OMB receives it by June 26, 2000. The final 
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs all Federal Agencies to use 
voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and procurement activities 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (VCS) are technical 
standards (such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) which are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal 
agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with 
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards for the EPA's emissions sampling and 
analysis reference methods and industry recommended materials analysis 
procedures cited in this rule. Candidate voluntary consensus standards 
for materials analysis were identified for product loss-on-ignition and 
free formaldehyde content. Consensus comments provided by industry 
experts were that the candidate standards did not meet industry 
materials analysis requirements. Therefore, EPA has determined these 
VCS were impractical for the wet-formed fiberglass mat production 
NESHAP. The EPA, in consultation with the Technical Association for the 
Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI), has formulated industry-specific 
materials analysis consensus standards which are proposed in this rule.
    The EPA search to identify VCS for the EPA's emissions sampling and 
analysis reference methods cited in this proposed rule identified six 
candidate standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA 
standard reference methods. However, after reviewing available 
standards, EPA determined that four of the candidate consensus 
standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or surrogates 
subject to emission standards in the proposed rule would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and validation 
data. Two of the remaining candidate consensus standards are new 
standards under development that EPA plans to follow, review and 
consider adopting at a later date.
    The EPA takes comment on compliance demonstration requirements 
proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to 
identify potentially-applicable VCS. Commentors should also explain why 
this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's test 
methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted 
for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used 
to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
    Section 63.2993 of the proposed NESHAP lists the EPA testing 
methods. These testing methods have been used by States and industry 
for more than 10 years.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

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

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart HHHH to read as follows:

Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production

Sec.

Introduction and Applicability

63.2980   What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2981   Does this subpart apply to me?
63.2982   Where can I find definitions of key words used in this 
subpart?

Standards

63.2983   What emission standards must I meet?
63.2984   What operating standards must I meet?
63.2985   When must I meet these standards?
63.2986   How do I comply with the standards?

Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan

63.2987   What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan 
include?
63.2988   How do I get my operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan approved?
63.2989   How do I change my operation, maintenance and monitoring 
plan?
63.2990   Can I conduct short-term experimental production runs that 
cause parameters to deviate from operating standards?

Performance Test Requirements

63.2991   When must I conduct performance tests?
63.2992   How do I conduct a performance test?
63.2993   What test methods must I use in conducting performance 
tests?
63.2994   How do I verify the performance of monitoring equipment?
63.2995   What equations must I use to determine compliance?

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

63.2996   What must I monitor?
63.2997   What are the requirements for monitoring devices?
63.2998   What records must I maintain?
63.2999   For how long must I maintain records?
63.3000   What reports must I submit?

Other Requirements and Information

63.3001   What portions of the general provisions apply to me?
63.3002   Who enforces this subpart?
63.3003   Incorporation by reference.

[[Page 34291]]

63.3004   What definitions must I understand?
63.3005-- 63.3079   [Reserved].

Tables

Table 1 of Subpart HHHH--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring and 
Recordkeeping
Table 2 of Subpart HHHH--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A) to Subpart HHHH

Appendices

Appendix A to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for Determining Free-
Formaldehyde in Urea-Formaldehyde Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced & 
Cooled)
Appendix B to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for the Determination 
of Loss-on-Ignition

Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production

Introduction and Applicability


Sec. 63.2980  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants for existing, new, and reconstructed drying and curing 
ovens at facilities that produce wet-formed fiberglass mat.


Sec. 63.2981  Does this subpart apply to me?

    You must comply with this subpart if you meet the criteria in 
paragraphs (a), (b), (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
    (a) You own or operate a drying and curing oven at a wet-formed 
fiberglass mat production facility.
    (b) The facility at which your drying and curing oven is located 
emits or has the potential to emit in the aggregate either:
    (1) A single hazardous air pollutant at a rate of 9.07 megagrams 
(10 tons) or more per year; or
    (2) Any combination of hazardous air pollutants at a rate of 22.68 
megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.


Sec. 63.2982  Where can I find definitions of key words used in this 
subpart?

    The definitions of keywords used in this subpart are in Secs. 63.2 
and 63.3004.

Standards


Sec. 63.2983  What emission standards must I meet?

    (a) You must control the formaldehyde emissions from each drying 
and curing oven by either:
    (1) Limiting emissions of formaldehyde to 0.03 kilograms or less 
per megagram (0.05 pounds per ton) of fiberglass mat produced; or
    (2) Reducing uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions by 96 percent or 
more.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec. 63.2984  What operating standards must I meet?

    (a) You must maintain operating parameters within established 
limits or ranges specified in your operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan described in Sec. 63.2987. If any of the specified 
parameters deviate from the limit or range specified in the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan, an operating parameter excursion 
occurs and must be addressed according to paragraph (b) of this 
section. The operating parameters in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of 
this section must be maintained:
    (1) You must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the average 
operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall below 
the temperature established during your performance test and specified 
in your approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (2) You must maintain the process or emission control device 
parameters within the ranges established during the performance test 
and specified in your approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan.
    (3) You must not use a resin with a free-formaldehyde content 
greater than that of the resin used during your performance test and 
specified in your approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (4) You must not use a binder formulation with a urea formaldehyde 
content greater than that of the binder formulation used during your 
performance test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan.
    (5) You must not use a urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin with a solids 
content greater than that of the resin used during your performance 
test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (6) You must not manufacture a product with a higher UF resin 
solids content per ton of product (including any material trimmed from 
the final product) than that of the product manufactured during your 
performance test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan.
    (7) You must not produce products that have a loss-on-ignition 
value greater than that of the product manufactured during your 
performance test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan.
    (b) When you detect that an operating parameter deviates from the 
limit or range established in paragraph (a) of this section, you must 
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour according to the provisions 
of your operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The corrective 
actions must be completed in an expeditious manner as specified in the 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (c) You must maintain and inspect control devices according to the 
procedures specified in the operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan.
    (d) You must reference the operating standards and their allowable 
ranges or limits and your operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan 
in the 40 CFR part 70 operating permit application for the drying and 
curing oven.
    (e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or other control device to 
achieve the emission standards in Sec. 63.2983, you must capture and 
convey the formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven 
according to the procedures in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial 
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice (22nd Edition).'' This 
publication is incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.3003.


Sec. 63.2985  When must I meet these standards?

    (a) Existing drying and curing ovens must be in compliance with 
this subpart no later than [3 years after date final rule is published 
in the Federal Register].
    (b) New or reconstructed drying and curing ovens must be in 
compliance with this subpart at startup or by [the date final rule is 
published in the Federal Register], whichever is later. For the purpose 
of this subpart, a new drying and curing oven is defined as each drying 
and curing oven that commences construction or reconstruction after May 
26, 2000.


Sec. 63.2986  How do I comply with the standards?

    (a) You must install, maintain, and operate a thermal oxidizer or 
other control device or implement a process modification that reduces 
formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven to the limits 
specified in the emission standards in Sec. 63.2983.
    (b) You must comply with the operating standards of this subpart. 
The operating standards prescribe the requirements for demonstrating 
continuous compliance, based on the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. Requirements for operating standards are specified in 
Sec. 63.2984.
    (c) You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance 
for each

[[Page 34292]]

drying and curing oven subject to the emission standards of this 
subpart and to establish the limits or ranges for process or control 
device parameters that will be monitored to demonstrate continuous 
compliance. You must repeat the test every 5 years as part of renewing 
your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit. A performance test is also 
required to change the limit or range for any operating parameter 
specified in the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. In 
conducting performance tests, you must meet the requirements of 
Sec. 63.7 for test dates; notifications; quality assurance program; 
testing facilities; conduct of the test; use of an alternate test 
method; data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting; and requesting a 
test to be waived. You must also conduct the tests under the conditions 
specified in Sec. 63.2992 and after verifying the performance of 
monitoring equipment as specified in Sec. 63.2994.
    (d) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate devices that 
monitor the parameters specified in your approved operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan at the frequency specified in the 
plan.
    (e) You must prepare and follow a written operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan. The plan must be submitted to the Administrator 
for review and approval and must be referenced by your 40 CFR part 70 
operating permit. The plan must include, as a minimum, the information 
specified in Sec. 63.2987.
    (f) You must comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of this subpart. You must perform the 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting required in Secs. 63.2996 
through 63.3000.

Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan


Sec. 63.2987  What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan 
include?

    (a) You must prescribe the monitoring that will be performed to 
ensure compliance with the standards in this subpart. Minimum 
monitoring requirements are listed in table 1 of this subpart. Your 
plan must specify the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of 
this section:
    (1) Each process and control device to be monitored, the type of 
monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that 
will be monitored.
    (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the 
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
    (3) The limits or ranges for each parameter that represent 
continuous compliance with the emission standards in Sec. 63.2983. 
Limits and ranges must be based on values of the monitored parameters 
recorded during performance tests.
    (b) You must establish routine and long-term maintenance and 
inspection schedules for each control device. You must incorporate in 
the schedules the control device manufacturer's recommendations for 
maintenance and inspections or equivalent procedures. If you use a 
thermal oxidizer, the maintenance schedule must include procedures for 
annual or more frequent inspection of the thermal oxidizer to ensure 
that the structural and design integrity of the combustion chamber is 
maintained. At a minimum, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (10) of this section:
    (1) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing 
devices for proper operation. Clean pilot sensor if necessary.
    (2) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air and adjust if 
necessary.
    (3) Inspect, when possible, all internal structures (such as 
baffles) to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications.
    (4) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation.
    (5) Inspect motors for proper operation.
    (6) Inspect, when possible, combustion chamber refractory lining. 
Clean and repair or replace lining if necessary.
    (7) Inspect the thermal oxidizer shell for proper sealing, 
corrosion, and hot spots.
    (8) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that 
the thermal oxidizer is operating properly and make any necessary 
adjustments.
    (9) Generally observe whether the equipment is maintained in good 
operating condition.
    (10) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.
    (c) You must establish procedures for responding to operating 
parameter excursions. At a minimum, the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section must include:
    (1) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter 
excursion.
    (2) Actions for correcting the excursion and returning the 
operating parameters to the allowable ranges or limits.
    (3) Procedures for recording the times that the excursion began and 
ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
    (d) Your plan must specify the recordkeeping procedures to document 
compliance with the emissions and operating standards. Table 1 of this 
subpart establishes the minimum recordkeeping requirements.


Sec. 63.2988  How do I get my operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan approved?

    You must obtain approval for your operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. The steps in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 
are required to obtain approval of your plan:
    (a) You must submit a draft plan to the Administrator for approval 
60 days before conducting the performance tests required in 
Sec. 63.2991.
    (b) Within 60 days after conducting the performance tests required 
in Sec. 63.2991, you must submit the final plan, including the results 
of the performance tests, to the Administrator for approval. In 
addition, you must submit the parameter levels or ranges to the permit 
Agency for approval.


Sec. 63.2989  How do I change my operation, maintenance and monitoring 
plan?

    Changes to your operation, maintenance and monitoring plan require 
the approval of the Administrator.
    (a) If you are revising the ranges or limits established for your 
operating standards, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) Submit a request to and obtain approval from the Administrator 
to conduct a performance test to revise your operating standard ranges 
or limits.
    (2) After you receive approval from the Administrator, conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate that compliance with the emissions 
standards can be achieved at the revised operating conditions.
    (3) Submit the performance test results and the revised operating, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan to the Administrator for approval.
    (4) Pending Administrator approval of the revised operating, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan, you must comply with the provisions 
of your approved plan.
    (b) If you are revising an aspect of the plan that does not require 
an additional performance test, for example, maintenance procedures, 
you must submit only a final plan to the Administrator for approval. 
Pending the Administrator's approval of the changes, you must comply 
with the provisions of your approved plan.

[[Page 34293]]

Sec. 63.2990  Can I conduct short-term experimental production runs 
that cause parameters to deviate from operating standards?

    With the approval of the Administrator, you may conduct short-term 
experimental production runs during which your operating parameters 
deviate from the limits or ranges in your operating standards. 
Experimental runs may include, but are not limited to, runs using resin 
with a higher free-formaldehyde content than specified in the 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan, or using experimental 
pollution prevention techniques. To conduct a short-term experimental 
production run, you must complete the requirements in paragraphs (a) 
and (b)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (a) Submit an application to the Administrator for approval at 
least 30 days before you conduct the test run.
    (b) Prepare an application. Your application must include:
    (1) The purpose of the experimental run.
    (2) Identification of the affected line.
    (3) An explanation of how the operating parameters will deviate 
from the previously approved ranges and limits.
    (4) The duration of the experimental run.
    (5) The date and time of the experimental run.
    (6) A description of any emission testing to be performed during 
the experimental run.

Performance Test Requirements


Sec. 63.2991  When must I conduct performance tests?

    You must conduct performance tests for each drying and curing oven 
subject to this subpart under the circumstances listed in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section:
    (a) Initially. You must conduct an initial performance test 
according to the dates specified in Sec. 63.7. This performance test is 
used to demonstrate initial compliance and establish operating 
parameter limits and ranges to be used to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the emission standards.
    (b) Every 5 Years. You must conduct a performance test every 5 
years as part of renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit.
    (c) To change your operation, maintenance and monitoring plan. You 
must conduct a performance test according to the requirements specified 
in Sec. 63.2989.


Sec. 63.2992  How do I conduct a performance test?

    (a) You must verify the performance of monitoring equipment as 
specified in Sec. 63.2994.
    (b) You must conduct the performance test according to the 
procedures in Sec. 63.7.
    (c) You must conduct the performance test under the conditions 
listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (1) The resin must have the highest specified free-formaldehyde 
content that will be used.
    (2) The binder formulation must have the highest urea formaldehyde 
content of all formulations that will be used.
    (3) The resin used must have the highest UF resin solids content of 
all resins that will be used.
    (4) The product made must have the highest UF resin solids content 
per ton of product of all products that will be manufactured.
    (5) The product made must have the highest loss-on-ignition of all 
products that will be manufactured.
    (6) You must operate at the maximum feasible production rate for 
the specific product.
    (d) During the test, you must monitor and record the operating 
parameters that you will use to demonstrate continuous compliance after 
the test. These parameters are listed in table 1 of this subpart.


Sec. 63.2993  What test methods must I use in conducting performance 
tests?

    (a) EPA Reference Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for 
selecting the sampling port location and the number of sampling ports.
    (b) EPA Reference Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for 
measuring the volumetric flow rate.
    (c) EPA Reference Method 316 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for 
measuring the concentration of formaldehyde.
    (d) The method contained in appendix A of this subpart for 
determining the free-formaldehyde resin solids content or the resin 
purchase specification and the vendor specification sheet for each 
resin lot.
    (e) The method in appendix B of this subpart for determining 
product loss-on-ignition.


Sec. 63.2994  How do I verify the performance of monitoring equipment?

    Before conducting the performance test, you must take the steps 
listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
    (a) Install and calibrate all process equipment, control devices, 
and monitoring equipment.
    (b) Conduct a performance evaluation of the continuous monitoring 
system (CMS) according to Sec. 63.8(e) which specifies the general 
requirements and requirements for notifications, the site-specific 
performance evaluation plan, conduct of the performance evaluation, and 
reporting of performance evaluation results.
    (c) If you use a thermal oxidizer, the temperature monitoring 
device must meet the performance and equipment specifications listed in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) The temperature monitoring device must be installed at the exit 
of the combustion zone of each thermal oxidizer.
    (2) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the 
average temperature required in Sec. 63.2984(a)(1).
    (3) The measurement method or reference method for calibration must 
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated 
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or an alternate reference 
subject to the approval of the Administrator.


Sec. 63.2995  What equations must I use to determine compliance?

    (a) Percent reduction for formaldehyde. To determine compliance 
with the percent reduction formaldehyde emission standard, use equation 
1 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.017

Where:

E<INF>f</INF>=Formaldehyde control efficiency, percent.
M<INF>i</INF>=Mass flow rate of formaldehyde entering the control 
device, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
M<INF>o</INF>=Mass flow rate of formaldehyde exiting the control 
device, kilograms (pounds) per hour.

    (b) Formaldehyde mass emissions rate. To determine compliance with 
the kilogram per megagram (pound per ton) formaldehyde emission 
standard, use equation 2 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.018

Where:

E=Formaldehyde mass emissions rate, kilograms (pounds) of formaldehyde 
per megagram (ton) of fiberglass mat produced.
M=Formaldehyde mass emissions rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
P=The wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate during the emissions 
sampling period, including any material trimmed from the final product, 
megagrams (tons) per hour.


[[Page 34294]]


    (c) Urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin solids content. To determine the 
UF resin solids content, use equation 3 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.019

Where:

%UF=Percent of urea-formaldehyde resin solids of wet-formed fiberglass 
mat produced, percent.
A=Ratio of the urea-formaldehyde resin solids to the total solids 
content of the binder formulation.
LOI=The loss-on-ignition of the wet-formed fiberglass mat, percent.

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements


Sec. 63.2996  What must I monitor?

    You must monitor the parameters listed in table 1 of this subpart 
and any other parameters specified on your operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. The parameters must be monitored, at a minimum, at the 
corresponding frequencies listed in table 1 of this subpart.


Sec. 63.2997  What are the requirements for monitoring devices?

    (a) If formaldehyde emissions are controlled using a thermal 
oxidizer, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(2) of this section:
    (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to monitor 
and record continuously the thermal oxidizer temperature consistent 
with manufacturer's recommendations.
    (2) Continuously monitor the thermal oxidizer temperature and 
determine and record average temperature in 15-minute and 3-hour block 
averages. You may determine the average temperature more frequently 
than every 15 minutes and every 3 hours, but not less frequently.
    (b) If formaldehyde emissions are controlled by process 
modifications or a control device other than a thermal oxidizer, you 
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate devices to monitor the 
parameters established in your operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan at the frequency established in the plan.


Sec. 63.2998  What records must I maintain?

    You must maintain records according to the procedures of 
Sec. 63.10. You are required to maintain the following types of records 
listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1) through (4) of this 
section:
    (a) All information required by the applicable general provisions. 
Table 2 of this subpart presents the applicable requirements of the 
general provisions.
    (b) The approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (c) Records of values of monitored parameters listed in table 1 of 
this subpart.
    (d) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the control 
devices.
    (e) If an operating parameter excursion occurs, you must record:
    (1) The date, time, and duration of the operating parameter 
excursion.
    (2) A brief description of the cause of the operating parameter 
excursion.
    (3) The dates and times at which corrective actions were initiated 
and completed.
    (4) A brief description of the corrective actions taken to return 
the parameter to the limit or to within the range established in the 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.


Sec. 63.2999  For how long must I maintain records?

    You must maintain each record required by this subpart for 5 years. 
You must maintain the most recent 2 years of records at the facility. 
The remaining 3 years of records may be retained offsite.


Sec. 63.3000  What reports must I submit?

    (a) You must submit all reports and notifications required by the 
applicable general provisions. Table 2 of this subpart presents the 
applicable requirements of the general provisions.
    (b) You must include in the performance test reports required by 
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) the values measured during the performance test for 
operating parameters listed in table 1 of this subpart. For the thermal 
oxidizer temperature, you must include 15-minute averages and the 
average for the three 1-hour test runs.
    (c) You must submit to the Administrator the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan required in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) within 180 days of the 
compliance date. You must submit reports of any revisions to the plan 
semiannually. If no revisions are made within a semiannual period, you 
are not required to submit a report.
    (d) If an operating parameter excursion occurs, you must comply 
with the reporting requirements for excess emissions and parameter 
monitoring exceedances in Sec. 63.10(e)(3), which specifies the 
reporting frequency, excess emissions report content, and summary 
report content. In addition to the information required by 
Sec. 63.10(e)(3), the report must contain the information recorded as a 
result of the operating parameter excursion, including the dates and 
times when the excursion commenced, corrective actions were taken, and 
the excursion ended and descriptions of the cause of the excursion and 
of the corrective actions taken. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3), you 
must report quarterly if an excursion occurs, semiannually if no 
excursions occur.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.3001  What portions of the general provisions apply to me?

    You must comply with the requirements of the general provisions of 
subpart A of this part, as specified in table 2 of this subpart.


Sec. 63.3002  Who enforces this subpart?

    If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State, the 
State is the primary enforcement authority. If the Administrator has 
not delegated authority to your State, only EPA enforces this subpart.


Sec. 63.3003  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following material is incorporated by reference in this 
section: chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists, (22nd edition, 1995). The incorporation by reference of 
this material will be approved by the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register as of the date of publication of the final rule 
according to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is 
incorporated as it exists on the date of approval and notice of any 
change in the material will be published in the Federal Register.
    (b) The materials referenced in this section are incorporated by 
reference and are available for inspection at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capital Street NW, Suite 700, 7th Floor, 
Washington, DC. The material is also available for purchase from the 
following address: Customer Service Department, American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, 
Cincinnati, OH 45240, telephone number (513) 742-2020.


Sec. 63.3004  What definitions must I understand?

    In addition to the definitions in Sec. 63.2, keywords used in this 
subpart are defined as follows:
    Binder application vacuum exhaust means the exhaust from the vacuum 
system used to remove excess resin solution from the wet-formed 
fiberglass mat before it enters the drying and curing oven.
    Binder formulation urea formaldehyde content means the urea

[[Page 34295]]

formaldehyde concentration of the binder, prepared from the urea-
formaldehyde resin and water, as applied to the glass fibers to form 
the mat.
    Drying and curing oven means the process section that evaporates 
excess moisture from a fiberglass mat and cures the resin that binds 
the fibers.
    Fiberglass mat production rate means the weight of finished 
fiberglass mat produced per hour of production including any trim 
removed after the binder is applied and before final packaging.
    Loss-on-ignition means the percentage decrease in weight of 
fiberglass mat measured before and after it has been ignited to burn 
off the applied binder. The loss-on-ignition is used to monitor the 
weight percent of binder in fiberglass mat.
    Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing means the 
production of a fiberglass mat by bonding glass fibers to each other 
using a resin solution. Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat 
manufacturing is also referred to as wet-formed fiberglass mat 
manufacturing.
    Operating parameter excursion means any time an operating parameter 
deviates from the limit or range established in the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    Thermal oxidizer means an air pollution control device that uses 
controlled flame combustion inside a combustion chamber to convert 
combustible materials to noncombustible gases.


Secs. 63.3005--63.3079  [Reserved].

    Table 1 of Subpart HHHH.--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring and
                              Recordkeeping
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You must monitor these                           And record for the
          parameters            At this frequency   monitored parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer             Continuously.....  15-minute and 3-hour
 temperature <SUP>a</SUP>.                                     block averages.
2. Other process or control     As specified in    As specified in your
 device parameters specified     your OMM.          OMM plan.
 in your operation,
 maintenance and monitoring
 (OMM) <SUP>b</SUP> plan.
3. Resin free-formaldehyde      For each lot.....  The value for each
 content.                                           lot used during the
                                                    operating day.
4. Binder formulation urea      For each product   The value for each
 formaldehyde content.           manufactured.      product manufactured
                                                    during the operating
                                                    day.
5. Urea-Formaldehyde (UF)       For each product   The value for each
 resin solids content.           manufactured.      product manufactured
                                                    during the operating
                                                    day.
6. Product UF resin solids      For each product   The value for each
 content per ton of product      manufactured.      product manufactured
 manufactured.                                      during the operating
                                                    day.
7. Loss-on-ignition...........  For each product   The value for each
                                 manufactured.      product manufactured
                                                    during the operating
                                                    day.
8. Average hourly nonwoven wet- .................  The value for each
 formed fiberglass mat                              product manufactured
 production rate <SUP>c</SUP>.                                 during the operating
                                                    day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde
  emissions.
\b\ Required if process modifications or a control device other than a
  thermal oxidizer is used to control emissions.
\c\ Average production rate is a parameter that must be monitored,
  however, it is not an operating standard.


    Table 2 of Subpart HHHH.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart HHHH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Applies to subpart
                Citation                       Requirement                 HHHH                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)................  General Applicability..  Yes...................
Sec.  63.1(a)(5).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(a)(8)................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.1(a)(9).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)..............  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.1(b)..........................  Initial Applicability    Yes...................
                                          Determination.
Sec.  63.1(c)(1).......................  Applicability After      Yes...................
                                          Standard Established.
Sec.  63.1(c)(2).......................  .......................  Yes...................  Some plants may be
                                                                                           area sources.
Sec.  63.1(c)(3).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(c)(4)-(c)(5)................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.1(d)..........................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(e)..........................  Applicability of Permit  Yes...................
                                          Program.
Sec.  63.2.............................  Definitions............  Yes...................  Additional definitions
                                                                                           in Sec.  63.3004.
Sec.  63.3.............................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes...................
Sec.  63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes...................
Sec.  63.4(a)(4).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.4(a)(5).......................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.4(b)-(c)......................  Circumvention/           Yes...................
                                          Severability.
Sec.  63.5(a)..........................  Construction/            Yes...................
                                          Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(b)(1).......................  Existing/Constructed/    Yes...................
                                          Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(b)(2).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.5(c)..........................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(d)..........................  Application for          Yes...................
                                          Approval of
                                          Construction/
                                          Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(e)..........................  Approval of              Yes...................
                                          Construction/
                                          Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(f)..........................  Approval of              Yes...................
                                          Construction/
                                          Reconstruction Based
                                          on State Review.

[[Page 34296]]

 
Sec.  63.6(a)..........................  Compliance with          Yes...................
                                          Standards and
                                          Maintenance--Applicabi
                                          lity.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)................  New and Reconstructed    Yes...................
                                          Sources--Dates.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(b)(7).......................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(c)(2)................  Existing Sources Dates.  Yes...................  Sec.  63.2985
                                                                                           specifies dates.
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(c)(5).......................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.6(d)..........................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(e)..........................  Operation and            Yes...................  Secs.  63.2984 and
                                          Maintenance                                      63.2987 specify
                                          Requirements.                                    additional
                                                                                           requirements
Sec.  63.6(f)..........................  Compliance with          Yes...................
                                          Emission Standards.
Sec.  63.6(g)..........................  Alternative Standard...  Yes...................
Sec.  63.6(h)..........................  Compliance with Opacity/ No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                          Visible Emissions                                specify opacity or
                                          Standards.                                       visible emission
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)...............  Extension of Compliance  Yes...................
Sec.  63.6(i)(15)......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(i)(16)......................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.6(j)..........................  Exemption from           Yes...................
                                          Compliance.
Sec.  63.7(a)..........................  Performance Test         Yes...................
                                          Requirements--Applicab
                                          ility and Dates.
Sec.  63.7(b)..........................  Notification of          Yes...................
                                          Performance Test.
Sec.  63.7(c)..........................  Quality Assurance        Yes...................
                                          Program/Test Plan.
Sec.  63.7(d)..........................  Testing Facilities.....  Yes...................
Sec.  63.7(e)..........................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes...................  Secs.  63.2991--63.299
                                                                                           4 specify additional
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.  63.7(f)..........................  Alternative Test Method  Yes...................  EPA retains approval
                                                                                           authority.
Sec.  63.7(g)..........................  Data Analysis..........  Yes...................
Sec.  63.7(h)..........................  Waiver of Tests........  Yes...................
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)................  Monitoring               Yes...................
                                          Requirements--Applicab
                                          ility.
Sec.  63.8(a)(3).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).......................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.8(b)..........................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes...................
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(c)(3)................  Continuous Monitoring    Yes...................
                                          System (CMS) Operation
                                          and Maintenance.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).......................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).......................  .......................  No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                                                                           specify opacity or
                                                                                           visible emission
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8)................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.8(d)..........................  Quality Control........  Yes...................
Sec.  63.8(e)..........................  CMS Performance          Yes...................
                                          Evaluation.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)................  Alternative Monitoring   Yes...................
                                          Method.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).......................  Alternative to Relative  No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                          Accuracy Test.                                   require the use of
                                                                                           continuous emissions
                                                                                           monitoring systems
                                                                                           (CEMS).
Sec.  63.8(g)(1).......................  Data Reduction.........  Yes...................
Sec.  63.8(g)(2).......................  Data Reduction.........  No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                                                                           require the use of
                                                                                           CEMS or continuous
                                                                                           opacity monitoring
                                                                                           systems (COMS).
Sec.  63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)................  Data Reduction.........  Yes...................
Sec.  63.9(a)..........................  Notification             Yes...................
                                          Requirements--Applicab
                                          ility.
Sec.  63.9(b)..........................  Initial Notifications..  Yes...................
Sec.  63.9(c)..........................  Request for Compliance   Yes...................
                                          Extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)..........................  New Source Notification  Yes...................
                                          for Special Compliance
                                          Requirements.
Sec.  63.9(e)..........................  Notification of          Yes...................
                                          Performance Test.
Sec.  63.9(f)..........................  Notification of Visible  No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                          Emissions/Opacity Test.                          specify opacity or
                                                                                           visible emission
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.  63.9(g)(1).......................  Additional CMS           Yes...................
                                          Notifications.
Sec.  63.9(g)(2) and (g)(3)............  .......................  No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                                                                           require the use of
                                                                                           COMS or CEMS.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)................  Notification of          Yes...................
                                          Compliance Status.
Sec.  63.9(h)(4).......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)................  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.9(i)..........................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes...................
Sec.  63.9(j)..........................  Change in Previous       Yes...................
                                          Information.
Sec.  63.10(a).........................  Recordkeeping/           Yes...................
                                          Reporting--Applicabili
                                          ty.
Sec.  63.10(b).........................  General Recordkeeping    Yes...................  Sec.  63.2998 includes
                                          Requirements.                                    additional
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.  63.10(c)(1)......................  Additional CMS           Yes...................
                                          Recordkeeping.
Sec.  63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)...............  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].

[[Page 34297]]

 
Sec.  63.10(c)(5)-(c)(8)...............  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.10(c)(9)......................  .......................  No....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.10(c)(10)-(c)(15).............  .......................  Yes...................
Sec.  63.10(d)(1)......................  General Reporting        Yes...................  Sec.  63.3000 includes
                                          Requirements.                                    additional
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2)......................  Performance Test         Yes...................  Sec.  63.3000 includes
                                          Results.                                         additional
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)......................  Opacity or Visible       No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                          Emissions Observations.                          specify opacity or
                                                                                           visible emission
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5)...............  Progress Reports/        Yes...................
                                          Startup, Shutdown, and
                                          Malfunction Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)......................  Additional CMS Reports-  No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                          General.                                         require CEMS.
Sec.  63.10(e)(2)......................  Reporting results of     Yes...................
                                          CMS performance
                                          evaluations.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3)......................  Excess Emissions/CMS     Yes...................
                                          Performance Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)......................  COMS Data Reports......  No....................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                                                                           specify opacity or
                                                                                           visible emission
                                                                                           standards.
Sec.  63.10(f).........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes...................
                                          Waiver.
Sec.  63.11............................  Control Device           No....................  Facilities subject to
                                          Requirements--Applicab                           subpart HHHH do not
                                          ility.                                           use flares as control
                                                                                           devices.
Sec.  63.12............................  State Authority and      Yes...................
                                          Delegations.
Sec.  63.13............................  Addresses..............  Yes...................
Sec.  63.14............................  Incorporation by         No....................
                                          Reference.
Sec.  63.15............................  Availability of          Yes...................
                                          Information/
                                          Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for Determining Free-
Formaldehyde in Urea-Formaldehyde Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced & 
Cooled)

1.0  Scope

    This procedure corresponds to the Housing and Urban Development 
method of determining free-formaldehyde in urea-formaldehyde resins. 
This method applies to samples that decompose to yield formaldehyde 
under the conditions of other free-formaldehyde methods. The primary 
use is for urea-formaldehyde resins.

2.0  Part A--Testing Resins

    Formaldehyde will react with sodium sulfite to form the sulfite 
addition products and liberate sodium hydroxide (NaOH); however, at 
room temperature, the methylol groups present will also react to 
liberate NaOH. Titrate at 0 degrees Celsius ( deg.C) to minimize the 
reaction of the methylol groups.
    2.1  Apparatus Required.
    2.1.1  Ice crusher.
    2.1.2  One 100-milliliter (mL) graduated cylinder.
    2.1.3  Three 400-mL beakers.
    2.1.4  One 50-mL burette.
    2.1.5  Analytical balance accurate to 0.1 milligrams (mg).
    2.1.6  Magnetic stirrer.
    2.1.7  Magnetic stirring bars.
    2.1.8  Disposable pipettes.
    2.1.9  Several 5-ounce (oz.) plastic cups.
    2.1.10  Ice cube trays (small cubes).
    2.2  Materials Required.
    2.2.1  Ice cubes (made with distilled water).
    2.2.2  A solution of 1 molar (M) sodium sulfite 
(Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF>) (63 grams (g) 
Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF>/500 mL water (H<INF>2</INF>O) 
neutralized to thymolphthalein endpoint).
    2.2.3  Standardized 0.1 normal (N) hydrochloric acid (Hcl).
    2.2.4  Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g thymolphthalein/199 g 
methanol).
    2.2.5  Sodium chloride (NaCl) (reagent grade).
    2.2.6  Sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
    2.3  Procedure.
    2.3.1  Prepare sufficient quantity of crushed ice for three 
determinations (two trays of cubes).
    2.3.2  Put 70 cubic centimeters (cc) of 1 M 
Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF> solution into a 400-mL beaker. Begin 
stirring and add approximately 100 g of crushed ice and 2 g of NaCl. 
Maintain 0  deg.C during test, adding ice as necessary.
    2.3.3  Add 10-15 drops of thymolphthalein indicator to the 
chilled solution. If the solution remains clear, add 0.1 N NaOH 
until the solution turns blue; then add 0.1 N HCl back to the 
colorless endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon adding the 
indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the colorless endpoint.
    2.3.4  On the analytical balance, accurately weigh the amount of 
resin indicated under the ``Resin Sample Size'' chart (see below) as 
follows.

                            Resin Sample Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Sample
                     Approximate free HCHO                       weight
                                                                 (grams)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5%..........................................................        10
0.5--1.0%.....................................................         5
1.0--3.0%.....................................................         2
>3.0%.........................................................         1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2.3.4.1  Pour about 1 inch of resin into a 5 oz. plastic cup.
    2.3.4.2  Determine the gross weight of the cup, resin, and 
disposable pipette (with the narrow tip broken off) fitted with a 
small rubber bulb.
    2.3.4.3  Pipette out the desired amount of resin into the 
stirring, chilled solution (approximately 1.5 to 2 g per pipette-
full).
    2.3.4.4  Quickly reweigh the cup, resin, and pipette with the 
bulb.
    2.3.4.5  The resultant weight loss equals the grams of resin 
being tested.
    2.3.5  Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1 N HCl to the 
colorless endpoint described in Step 3 (2.3.3).
    2.3.6  Repeat the test in triplicate.
    2.4  Calculation.
    2.4.1  The percent free-formaldehyde (%HCHO) is calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.020


[[Page 34298]]


    2.4.2  Compute the average percent free-formaldehyde of the 
three tests. Note: If the results of the three tests are not within 
a range of <plus-minus>0.5 percent or if the average of the three 
tests does not meet expected limits, carry out Part B and then 
repeat Part A.

3.0  Part B--Standard Check

    Part B ensures that test reagents used in determining percent 
free-formaldehyde in urea-formaldehyde resins are of proper 
concentration and that operator technique is correct. Should any 
doubts arise in either of these areas, the formaldehyde standard 
solution test should be carried out.
    3.1  Preparation and Standardization of a 1 Percent Formalin 
Solution.
    Prepare a solution containing approximately 1 percent 
formaldehyde from a stock 37 percent formalin solution. Standardize 
the prepared solution by titrating the hydroxyl ions resulting from 
the formation of the formaldehyde bisulfite complex.
    3.2  Apparatus Required.

    Note: All reagents must be American Chemical Society analytical 
reagent grade or better.

    3.2.1  One 1-liter (L) volumetric flask (class A).
    3.2.2  One 250-mL volumetric flask (class A).
    3.2.3  One 250-mL beaker.
    3.2.4  One 100-mL pipette (class A).
    3.2.5  One 10-mL pipette (class A).
    3.2.6  One 50-mL graduated cylinder (class A).
    3.2.7  A pH meter, standardized using pH 7 and pH 10 buffers.
    3.2.8  Magnetic stirrer.
    3.2.9  Magnetic stirring bars.
    3.2.10  Several 5-oz. plastic cups.
    3.2.11  Disposal pippettes.
    3.2.12  Ice cube trays (small cubes).
    3.3  Materials Required.
    3.3.1  A solution of 37 percent formalin.
    3.3.2  Anhydrous Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF>.
    3.3.3  Distilled water.
    3.3.4  Standardized 0.100 N Hcl.
    3.3.5  Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g thymolphthalein/199 g 
methanol).
    3.4  Preparation of Solutions and Reagents.
    3.4.1  Formaldehyde Standard Solution (approximately 1 percent). 
Measure, using a graduated cylinder, 27.0 mL of analytical reagent 
37 percent formalin solution into a 1-L volumetric flask. Fill the 
flask to volume with distilled water.

    Note: You must standardize this solution as described in section 
3.5. This solution is stable for 3 months.

    3.4.2  Sodium Sulfite Solution 1.0 M (used for standardization 
of Formaldehyde Standard Solution). Quantitatively transfer, using 
distilled water as the transfer solvent, 31.50 g of anhydrous 
Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF> into a 250-mL volumetric flask. 
Dissolve in approximately 100 ml of distilled water and fill to 
volume. Note: You must prepare this solution daily, but the 
calibration of the Formaldehyde Standard Solution needs to be done 
only once.
    3.4.3  Hydrochloric Acid Standard Solution 0.100 M. This reagent 
should be readily available as a primary standard that only needs to 
be diluted.
    3.5  Standardization.
    3.5.1  Standardization of Formaldehyde Standard Solution.
    3.5.1.1  Pipette 100.0 mL of 1 M sodium sulfite into a stirred 
250-mL beaker.
    3.5.1.2  Using a standardized pH meter, measure and record the 
pH. The pH should be around 10. It is not essential the pH be 10; 
however, it is essential that the value be accurately recorded.
    3.5.1.3  To the stirring Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF> solution, 
pipette in 10.0 mL of Formaldehyde Standard Solution. The pH should 
rise sharply to about 12.
    3.5.1.4  Using the pH meter as a continuous monitor, titrate the 
solution back to the original exact pH using 0.100 N HCl. Record the 
milliliters of HCl used as titrant.

    Note:  Approximately 30 to 35 mL of HCl will be required.

    3.5.1.5  Calculate the concentration of the Formaldehyde 
Standard Solution using the equation as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.021

    3.6  Procedure.
    3.6.1  Prepare a sufficient quantity of crushed ice for three 
determinations (two trays of cubes).
    3.6.2  Put 70 cc of 1 M Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF> solution 
into a 400-mL beaker. Begin stirring and add approximately 100 g of 
crushed ice and 2 g NaCl. Maintain 0  deg.C during the test, adding 
ice as necessary.
    3.6.3  Add 10-15 drops of thymolphthalein indicator to the 
chilled solution. If the solution remains clear, add 0.1 N NaOH 
until the solution turns blue; then add 0.1 N HCl back to the 
colorless endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon adding the 
indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the colorless endpoint.
    3.6.4  On the analytical balance, accurately weigh a sample of 
Formaldehyde Standard Solution as follows.
    3.6.4.1  Pour about 0.5 inches of Formaldehyde Standard Solution 
into a 5-oz. plastic cup.
    3.6.4.2  Determine the gross weight of the cup, Formaldehyde 
Standard Solution, and a disposable pipette fitted with a small 
rubber bulb.
    3.6.4.3  Pipette approximately 5 g of the Formaldehyde Standard 
Solution into the stirring, chilled Na<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>3</INF> 
solution.
    3.6.4.4  Quickly reweigh the cup, Formaldehyde Standard 
Solution, and pipette with the bulb.
    3.6.4.5  The resultant weight loss equals the grams of 
Formaldehyde Standard Solution being tested.
    3.6.5  Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1 N HCl to the 
colorless endpoint in Step 3 (3.6.3).
    3.6.6  Repeat the test in triplicate.
    3.7  Calculation for Formaldehyde Standard Solution.
    3.7.1  The percent free-formaldehyde (% HCHO) is calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.022

    3.7.2  The range of the results of three tests should be no more 
than <plus-minus>5 percent of the actual Formaldehyde Standard 
Solution concentration. Report results to two decimal places.
    3.8  Reference.
    West Coast Adhesive Manufacturers Trade Association Test 10.1.

Appendix B to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for the Determination 
of Loss-on-Ignition

1.0  Purpose

    The purpose of this test is to determine the loss-on-ignition 
(LOI) of wet-formed fiberglass mat.

2.0  Equipment

    2.1  Scale sensitive to 0.001 gram (g).
    2.2  Drying oven equipped with a means of constant temperature 
regulation and mechanical air convection.
    2.3  Furnace designed to heat to at least 625  deg.C (1,157 
deg.F) and controllable to <plus-minus>25  deg.C (<plus-minus>45 
deg.F).
    2.4  Crucible, high form, 250 milliliter (mL).
    2.5  Desiccator.
    2.6  Pan balance (see Note 2 in 4.9)

3.0  Sample Collection Procedure

    3.1  Obtain a sample of mat in accordance with Technical 
Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) method 1007 
``Sample Location.''
    3.2  Use a 5-to 10-g sample cut into pieces small enough to fit 
into the crucible.
    3.3  Place the sample in the crucible. (Note 1: To test without 
the use of a crucible, see Note 2 after Section 4.8.)
    3.4  Condition the sample in the furnace set at 105 <plus-minus> 
3  deg.C (221 <plus-minus> 9  deg.F) for 5 minutes <plus-minus> 30 
seconds.

4.0  Procedure

    4.1  Condition each sample by drying for 5 minutes <plus-minus> 
30 seconds at 105 <plus-minus> 3  deg.C (22 <plus-minus> 5  deg.F).

[[Page 34299]]

    4.2  Remove the test sample from the furnace and cool in the 
desiccator for 30 minutes in the standard atmosphere for testing 
glass textiles.
    4.3  Place the empty crucible in the furnace at 625 <plus-minus> 
25  deg.C (1,157 <plus-minus> 45  deg.F). After 30 minutes, remove 
and cool the crucible in the standard atmosphere (TAPPI method 1008) 
for 30 minutes.
    4.4  Identify each crucible with respect to each test sample of 
mat.
    4.5  Weigh the empty crucible to the nearest 0.001 g. Record 
this weight as the tare mass, T.
    4.6  Place the test sample in the crucible and weigh to the 
nearest 0.001 g. Record this weight as the initial mass, A.
    4.7  Place the test sample and crucible in the furnace and 
ignite at 625 <plus-minus> 25  deg.C (1,157 <plus-minus> 45  deg.F).
    4.8  After ignition for at least 30 minutes, remove the test 
sample and crucible from the furnace and cool in the desiccator for 
30 minutes in the standard atmosphere (TAPPI method 1008).
    4.9  Remove each crucible, and test each sample separately from 
the desiccator, and immediately weigh each sample to the nearest 
0.001 g. Record this weight as the ignited mass, B. (Note 2: When it 
is known that no ash residue separates from the test sample during 
the weighing and igniting processes, you may weigh the sample 
separately without the crucible. When this occurs, the tare mass (T) 
equals zero. With appropriate care, you can dry and weigh a single 
piece of mat and place with tongs into the ignition oven on 
appropriate refractory supports. When the ignition time is over, 
remove the sample as an intact fragile web and weigh it directly on 
a pan balance.)

5.0  Calculation

    5.1  Calculate the LOI for each sample as follows:

% LOI = 100  x  (A-B)/(A-T)

Where:

A = initial mass of crucible and sample before ignition (g);
B = mass of crucible and glass residue after ignition (g); and
T = tare mass of crucible, (g) (see Note 2).
    5.2 Report the percent LOI of the glass mat to the nearest 0.1 
percent.

6.0  Precision

    The repeatability of this test method for measurements on 
adjacent specimens from the same sample of mat is better than 1 
percent.

[FR Doc. 00-12788 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>