# Vol. 80 Wednesday,

No. 145 July 29, 2015

Part II



# Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 63

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Final Rule


### 45280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 63**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9928–71–OAR]** 

**RIN 2060–AQ90**

**National Emissions Standards for**

**Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass**  **Manufacturing**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) conducted for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Under this action, we are establishing pollutant-specific
emissions limits for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that were previously regulated (under a surrogate) and for HAP that were previously unregulated. This action finalizes first-time generally available control technologies (GACT) standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area sources. We are also amending regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); adding requirements for reporting of performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); and making several minor clarifications and
corrections. The revisions in these final
rules increase the level of emissions control and environmental protection provided by the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP.

**DATES :**  This final action is effective on July 29, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established
two dockets for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 (for 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) and EPA– HQ–OAR–2010–1042 (for 40 CFR part 63, subparts NNN and NN). All
documents in these dockets are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,

e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566–1742.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For questions about this final action, contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D 234–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 5167; fax number: (919) 541–5600; and
email address: fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4843; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code E–19J, Chicago, IL 60604– 3507; telephone number: (312) 343– 6266; and email address: ayres.sara@

epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Preamble Acronyms and
Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ADAF Age-dependent adjustment factors AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
ANSI American National Standards

Institute
APA Administrative Procedures Act
BDL Below detection limit BFS Batch Formulation System
CAA Clean Air Act CA–REL California reference exposure level
CBI Confidential business information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data

Reporting Interface CEMS Continuous emission monitoring

system CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon monoxide COS Carbonyl sulfide CPMS Continuous parameter monitoring

system Cr Chromium CRA Congressional Review Act CRT Cathode ray tube DESP Dry electrostatic precipitator dscm Dry standard cubic meters EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning

Guidelines ERT Electronic Reporting Tool ESP Electrostatic precipitator
FA Flame attenuation

FR Federal Register GACT Generally available control

technology HAP Hazardous air pollutants HCl Hydrogen chloride HEPA High efficiency particulate air HF Hydrogen fluoride HQ Hazard quotient ICR Information collection request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System Lb/ton Pounds per ton LOI Loss on ignition
MACT Maximum achievable control

technology
MDL Minimum detection limit
MIR Maximum individual risk NAICS North American Industry

Classification System
NAIMA North American Insulation

Manufacturers Association
NESHAP National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants

NO X Nitrogen oxide NPV Net present value
NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSSN National Standards Systems Network NTTAA National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB–HAP Persistent and BioaccumulativeHAP
PM Particulate matter ppm Parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RACT/BACT/LAER Reasonably Available

Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission

Rate
RCRA Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act RDL Representative detection limit REL Recommended exposure limit RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RIN Regulatory Information Number RS Rotary spin RTR Risk and Technology Review SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration SBAR Small Business Analytical Review SBREFA Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Flexibility Act

SO 2 Sulfur dioxide SSM Startup, shutdown, malfunction TOSHI Target organ specific hazard index TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL Upper prediction limit


### 45281 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards

Background Information. On November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770), the EPA proposed revisions to the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP based on our RTR under Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6). We proposed chromium compounds emissions limits for wool fiberglass furnaces at major sources after finding
that chromium refractories used to construct furnaces degrade with age and emit continuously-increasing levels of chromium compounds. These findings were the result of emissions testing conducted on these types of furnaces indicating significant amounts (550 pounds) of chromium emissions, 93 percent of which was in the hexavalent (most toxic) form. The furnaces tested were considered representative of all furnaces at each facility. In the November 2011 proposal, we also announced that we had already issued a new information collection request (ICR) to the wool fiberglass industry to
collect data on chromium emissions and chromium refractory use at all operating wool fiberglass furnaces with the intent of regulating area sources in a future

action.

In the November 2011 proposal we also proposed to discontinue using formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol
and methanol in both the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories and to discontinue using carbon monoxide (CO) as a surrogate for carbonyl sulfide (COS) in the Mineral Wool Production source category. This revision was proposed because we found that the surrogate for each pollutant is not necessarily a reasonable representation of the pollutant-specific emissions for these source categories ( e.g., formaldehyde is not invariably present in the binder formulation). We proposed
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the HAP phenol and methanol in both source categories, and COS in the
Mineral Wool Production source category. We also proposed MACT standards for hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrochloric acid (HCl), which are emitted from these source categories, but were not regulated under the MACT
standard.

On April 15, 2013 (78 FR 22370), the EPA issued a supplemental proposal
that was based on comments to the November 2011 proposal and new information on processes in both source categories. New emissions test data for all wool fiberglass furnaces across the industry showed that the same types of furnaces were in operation at both major and area sources, but that the emissions profile of electric furnaces differed from that of gas-fired furnaces ( i.e., emissions that could endanger public health). In that notice, we listed wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources, and proposed chromium emission limits for gas-fired wool fiberglass furnaces at area sources, and announced that the chromium limits at major sources would be specific to gas-fired furnaces (such as air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and not electric furnaces (such as cold-top and steel shell furnaces).

On November 13, 2014 (79 FR 68012), the EPA issued a second supplemental proposal to explain changes to previously proposed emissions limits for sources in these source categories. We proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) in lieu of certain emissions limits, and clarified our use of the upper predictive limit (UPL) in setting MACT floors. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and
revisions for these rules. We summarize some of the more significant comments we received regarding the proposed rules and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the memorandum,
‘‘National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Risk and Technology Review)—Summary of Public Comments and Responses’’ (Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 andEPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). ‘‘Trackchanges’’ versions of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes
in this action are available in the respective dockets.

Organization of This Document

The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document

and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative

Reconsideration II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this

action?
B. What is the Mineral Wool Production

source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the

Mineral Wool Production source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? D. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? E. What changes did we propose for major

sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? F. What did we propose for area sources in

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal?
III. What is Included in the Final Mineral
Wool Production Rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments

based on the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments

based on the technology review for the
Mineral Wool Production source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments

addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown for the Mineral Wool Production source category? E. What other changes have been made to

the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP? F. What are the effective and compliance

dates of the new MACT standards for the
Mineral Wool Production source category? G. What are the requirements for

submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Mineral Wool Production source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral

Wool Production Source Category B. Technology Review for the Mineral

Wool Production Source Category
C. MACT Standards for Pollutants

Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Provisions for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral

Wool Production NESHAP
V. What is Included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for major

sources?
A. What are the final rule amendments

based on the risk review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments

based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments

pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for the


### 45282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?
E. What are the final rule amendments for

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown? F. What other changes have been made to

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major sources)? G. What are the effective and compliance

dates of the standards? H. What is the status of the Wool Fiberglass

Manufacturing MACT standard
amendments under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS Manufacturing

Lines? I. What are the requirements for

submission of performance test data to the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?
VI. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) B. Technology Review for the Wool

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)
C. MACT Standards for Pollutants

Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)
D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and HF

Emissions From Furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) F. Other Changes Made to the Wool

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (Major and Area Sources)
VII. What is included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for area

sources? A. Generally Available Control Technology

(GACT) Analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources B. What are the final requirements for the

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area

sources? C. What are the effective and compliance

dates of the standards for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? D. What are the requirements for

submission of performance test data to the EPA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice

did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s

environmental health did we conduct? IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.



### TABLE 

### 1—NESHAP AND 

### I NDUSTRIAL 

### S OURCE 

### C ATEGORIES 

### A FFECTED BY 

### T HIS 

### F INAL 

### A CTION

NESHAP and source category NAICS a code

Mineral Wool Production ...... 327993Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing ................................. 327993

a North American Industry Classification System.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**

**CONTACT** section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the Internet through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/woolfib/ woolfipg and at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ atw/minwool/minwopg. Following publication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at
this same Web site.

Additional information is available on
the RTR Web site at http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
This information includes an overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR source categories
and detailed emissions and other data we used as inputs to the risk

assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 28, 2015. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.’’ This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding **FOR**

**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section,
and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.


### 45283 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

1 The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an ’ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.’’).

2 For EPA’s document on the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, see 64 FR 38706–38715–716 (July 19, 1999). 3 For the listing documents of the Strategy, see 64 FR 38075, July 19, 1999; 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; and 74 FR 30366, June

25, 2009.

4 We have made several revisions to the CAA section 112(c)(3) list since its issuance: 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; 74 FR 30366, June 25, 2009. II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting
one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year or more, or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology or MACT standards and must reflect the maximum degree of
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including but not limited to
those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.

For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost
considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emissionlimitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on
the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and
the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA
determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see the November 25, 2011, proposal (76 FR 72773).

CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) address regulation of area sources. Collectively, these sections are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). 2 Area sources are those that emit less than the major source threshold of HAP ( i.e., less than 10 tons per year of a single pollutant or 25 tons per year of
a combination of HAP. Under the Strategy, we must regulate emissions of the 30 most toxic HAP emitted by area sources, based on generally available control technology (GACT), at a minimum. These provisions do not require the EPA to regulate all HAP from all HAP-emitting processes as we must do when setting MACT standards. On April 15, 2013, consistent with the Strategy, the agency added gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at area sources to the source category list 3 4 and proposed emissions standards for particulate matter (PM) and chromium compounds from these sources at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities (78 FR 22370). On November 13, 2014, we withdrew our previously proposed GACT limits for PM and proposed to only require total chromium compounds
emissions limits for these sources. Reduction of PM is accomplished through chromium reductions because chromium is the toxic pollutant entrained within PM that is emitted by these sources. We are finalizing GACT limits for chromium compound emissions for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area source category.

With this regulation, pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the agency will have subjected additional sources to regulation for the urban metal HAP chromium compounds, which is wholly consistent with the goals of the Strategy. For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see the November 25, 2011, supplemental proposal (76 FR 72770), the April 15, 2013, supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375–22376), and the November 13, 2014, supplemental proposal (79 FR 68012).

B. What is the Mineral Wool Production source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

The EPA promulgated the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29490). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
DDD. The Mineral Wool Production industry consists of facilities that produce mineral wool fiber from slag, rock, or other materials, excluding sand or glass. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently consists of eight facilities.

Mineral wool is a material used mainly for thermal and acoustical insulation. This category includes, but is not limited to, the following process units: A cupola furnace for melting the mineral charge; a blow chamber in which air and, in some cases, a binder are drawn over the fibers, forming them to a screen; a curing oven to bond the fibers; and a cooling compartment. The
1999 NESHAP rule set emissions limits


### 45284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

for PM from new and existing cupolas, CO from new cupolas, and formaldehyde from new and existing curing ovens.

C. What changes did we propose for the
Mineral Wool Production source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal?

On November 25, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule for the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD, that proposed RTR amendments to this standard under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). In that proposal, we stated that maximum individual risk (MIR) for
cancer was 4-in-1 million based on
available test data for actual emissions
and 10-in-1 million based on the MACTallowable emission limits of the rule. We proposed, considering all available information, that risks were acceptable.

For PM, we reviewed the control technologies in use by the industry and did not find any improvements or developments in practices, processes, and control technologies since the 1999 MACT standard was promulgated. Therefore, we did not propose
amendments to the PM standards under either CAA sections 112(f)(2) or (d)(6).

We also proposed to discontinue use of surrogates where we determined that the surrogacy was not reasonable. We proposed to discontinue using CO as a surrogate for COS, and to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol. Based on new
source test data and CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed MACT floor emission limits for existing and new sources of COS, phenol, and methanol, pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate;
and MACT floor emission limits for formaldehyde, the former surrogate. Weretained PM as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals because there is a reasonable surrogate relationship. We also proposed emissions limits for HF and HCl, two pollutants that were previously unregulated, and proposed alternative emission limits for periods of startup and shutdown.

On April 15, 2013, we published a supplemental proposal for the Mineral
Wool Production NESHAP that took
into consideration the comments
received on the November 2011 proposal, new emissions testing for horizontal lines, and subcategorization of cupolas based on design and raw
material use. We withdrew our previously-proposed alternative emission limits for startup and shutdown, and instead proposed that sources may demonstrate compliance
with the MACT floor emission limits during periods of startup and shutdown by keeping records showing that the emissions from cupolas were routed to air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.

On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental proposal for the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP that took into
consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal, explained changes to previously proposed MACT limits for sources in this source category
and clarified our use of the UPL in setting the MACT floors. In that proposal, we also proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown based on the practices used by the best performers among mineral wool producers to minimize emissions during these activities.

D. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category is defined as any facility engaged in producing wool fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid or any other materials. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing industry consists of facilities that produce bonded building insulation using a rotary spin (RS) manufacturing line, and facilities that produce bondedpipe insulation and bonded heavydensity products using a flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing line. The 1999 MACT standards currently apply to 10 major sources in the wool fiberglass industry. Another 20 facilities

are area sources.

Wool fiberglass is used primarily as a
thermal and acoustical insulation for buildings, automobiles, aircraft, appliances, ductwork and pipes. This category includes, but is not limited to, the following process units: A furnace for melting the mineral charge; a bonded line operation in which air and a binder
are drawn over the fibers and cured in an oven to bond the fibers; and a cooling compartment. The 1999 NESHAP rule
set emissions limits for PM from new and existing glass-melting furnaces and formaldehyde emissions from new FA and new and existing RS bonded lines. E. What changes did we propose for major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal?

On November 25, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP to
amend the standard based on our RTR analyses. In that proposal, we found under CAA section 112(f)(2) that the MIR for cancer, primarily due to
emissions of hexavalent chromium and formaldehyde, was 40-in-1 million
based on actual emissions and 60-in-1
million based on MACT-allowable
emissions. The maximum chronic noncancer target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) value based on actual
emissions was 0.2 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts. The acute noncancer hazard quotient (HQ), based on the recommended exposure limit (REL) for formaldehyde, was 30. The acute noncancer HQ, based on the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL–1) for formaldehyde, was 2. We determined that nothing prevents construction of a high chromium emitting furnace at any wool fiberglass facility. Therefore, we evaluated risk under an auxiliary risk assessment which asked, ‘‘if all wool fiberglass facilities emitted hexavalent chromium at the level of the highest emitter (that is, 450 pounds of hexavalent chromium annually), what
would be the risk to human health?’’ The MIR under the auxiliary risk analysis exceeded 100-in-one million at four facilities, a level we consider unacceptable.

Although the risk from actual
emissions were considered to be well within a level we consider acceptable, we proposed that risk due to hexavalent
chromium could be further reduced to achieve an ample margin of safety. The chromium compounds limit would alsoprevent operation of another highchromium emitting furnace in this source category. We therefore proposed chromium compounds emission limits of 0.00006 pounds of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled, under CAA section 112(f)(2).

We proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) that the control technologies in place on wool fiberglass manufacturing furnaces were essentially
the same as existed at the time the MACT standards were promulgated, but that there have been improvements in both the operation and the design of furnaces and their control technologies since that time. As a result, we proposed


### 45285 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

emissions limits for both PM and total chromium compounds for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at major sources, under CAA section 112(d)(6), and indicated our intent to list and regulate chromium compounds at area sources in
a future action.

In the November 2011 proposal,
similar to how we addressed the mineral wool source category, we also proposed in wool fiberglass to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol because the surrogacy was not reasonable. We proposed phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol MACT
floor emission limits based on
information collected in 2010 for two subcategories of bonded lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We proposed limits for FA lines that apply
to all lines without further subcategorization, and proposed alternative emission limits for periods of startup and shutdown. In that notice, we
also announced that we had issued an ICR under our section 114 authority to gather additional emission information
on furnace chromium emissions.

In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we took into consideration
comments received on the November 2011 proposal, new process and chromium emissions test data, and
related furnace data collected under a

CAA section 114 ICR.

We further proposed revised PM emission limits for glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources under CAA section 112(d)(6), presented the results of the new chromium emission testing collected from glass-melting furnaces, and required that the chromium emission limits proposed under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) would apply only to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at major sources. We proposed an alternative compliance provision for startup and shutdown that would require sources to keep records showing that emissions were routed to the air pollution control devices and that these control devices were operated at the parameters established during the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the applicable emission limits. For electric cold-top furnaces, we proposed limiting raw material content to only cullet during startup and shutdown in recognition of
the fact that these furnaces do not allow control devices to be operated during startup. For all other glass-melting furnaces, we also required preheating the empty furnace using only natural

gas.

On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental proposal. For major sources, the 2014 supplemental proposal took into
consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal, withdrew the previously proposed amendments for affirmative defense, explained changes to previously proposed limits for major sources in this source category, proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown, and clarified our use of the UPL in setting
MACT floors.

F. What did we propose for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal?

In the November 2011 proposal, we noted our intent to potentially list wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources
and to use data from the CAA section 114 letter noted above to regulate wool fiberglass area sources in a future action.

On April 15, 2013, the EPA publisheda supplemental proposal that listed gasfired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that
are area sources as a source category under CAA sections 112(c)(3)and (k)(3). We also proposed first-time PM and total chromium compounds standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area sources under CAA section 112(d)(5).

We proposed GACT standards of 0.00006 pounds of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled and 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled. These were the same limits that we proposed for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. To maintain consistency with the major source rule, we proposed the same provisions for startup, shutdown, malfunction, testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping that we proposed for major sources.

On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental proposal. For area sources, the 2014 supplemental proposal took into
consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal, withdrew the previously proposed provisions for affirmative defense, explained changes to previously proposed limits for sources in this source category, and proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown.

III. What is included in the final
Mineral Wool Production rule?

This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the
Mineral Wool Production source category and amends the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP based on those
determinations. This action also
finalizes MACT emission limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), work practice standards for periods of startup
and shutdown under CAA section 112(h), and other changes to the
NESHAP discussed in section III.E of this preamble.

In this action, we are finalizing, as previously proposed, the emission limits for HAP-emitting processes in the
Mineral Wool Production source category, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble.



### TABLE 

### 2—E MISSION 

### L IMITS FOR THE 

### M INERAL 

### W OOL 

### P RODUCTION 

### S OURCE 

### C ATEGORY

Process Subcategory HAP 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2014 Proposal Final rule

Cupolas .............. Existing Open-top ........................... COS ................... 3.3 .................. 6.8 .................. No change ..... 6.8 New Open-top ................................. COS ................... 0.017 .............. 4.3 .................. 3.2 ................. . 3.2 Existing Closed-top ......................... COS ................... 3.3 .................. 3.4 .................. No change ..... 3.4 New Closed-top .............................. COS ................... 0.017 .............. 0.025 .............. 0.062 .............. 0.06 2 Existing Processing Slag ................ HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.16 ................ No change ..... 0.16

HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.21 ................ 0.44 ................ 0.44 New Processing Slag ..................... HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.16 ................ 0.015 .............. 0.015

HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.21 ................ 0.012 .............. 0.012 Existing Not Processing Slag ......... HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.13 ................ No change ..... 0.13 HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.43 ................ No change ..... 0.43 New Not Processing Slag ............... HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.13 ................ 0.018 .............. 0.018

HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.43 ................ 0.015 .............. 0.015


### 45286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

5 For the purpose of this exercise, we considered developments not identified or considered during development of the 1999 MACT rules, including any add-on control technology or equipment; any improvements in technology or equipment that could result in significant additional emissions reduction; any work practice or operational procedure; any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry; and any development in equipment or technology that could result in decreased HAP

emissions. 

### TABLE 

### 2—E MISSION 

### L IMITS FOR THE 

### M INERAL 

### W OOL 

### P RODUCTION 

### S OURCE 

### C ATEGORY

### —Continued

Process Subcategory HAP 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2014 Proposal Final rule

Bonded Lines ..... Vertical (Existing and New) Combined Collection and Curing Operations. Formaldehyde ....

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

Methanol ............ 0.46 ................

0.52 ................

0.63 ................ 2.7 ..................

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

1.0 .................. 2.4 ..................

0.71 ................

0.92 ................ 2.4

0.71

0.92 Horizontal (Existing and New)

Combined Collection and Curing Operations. Formaldehyde ....

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

Methanol ............ 0.054 ..............

0.15 ................

0.022 .............. No change ..... No change ..... No change ..... 0.63 ................

0.12 ................

0.49 ................ 0.63

0.12

0.49Drum (Existing and New) Combined Collection and Curing Operations. Formaldehyde ....

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

Methanol ............ 0.067 ..............

0.0023 ............

0.00077 .......... 0.18 ................

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

0.48 ................ 0.17 ................

0.85 ................

0.28 ................ 0.17

0.85

0.28

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

As presented in the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we are finalizing our determination that risks
from the Mineral Wool Production source category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. We are, therefore, not requiring
additional controls and are thus readopting the existing standards under section 112(f)(2).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the
Mineral Wool Production source category?

As discussed in the November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72786–72787, 72798),
we identified and evaluated the developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have
occurred since the 1999 MACT rules were promulgated. In cases where we identified such developments, we analyzed the technical feasibility and the estimated impacts ( e.g., costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions) of applying these developments. We then decided, based on impacts and feasibility, whether it was necessary to propose amendments to the regulation to require any of the identified developments.

Based on our analyses of the data,
information collected under the voluntary ICR, our general understanding of both of the industries
and other available information on potential controls for these industries, we identified potential developments 5 in practices, processes, and control technologies.

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and technologies that were not considered at the time we developed the 1999 MACT rules, we reviewed a variety of data sources for the mineral wool industry. This review included the
NESHAP for various industries promulgated after the 1999 MACT rules, regulatory requirements and technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to
emissions sources in the Mineral Wool Production source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies.

We additionally consulted the EPA’s Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse to identify potential technology advances, and searched this
database to determine whether it contained any practices, processes, or control technologies for the types of processes covered by the mineral wool production rule.

We also requested information from facilities regarding developments in practices, processes or control technologies and we reviewed other information sources, such as state and local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases. For more information, see the ‘‘Technology
Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category Memorandum’’ in the
docket to this rule.

As a result of our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Mineral Wool Production source category, we determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to this MACT
standard. We are therefore not amending the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

This action finalizes the removal of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol, and the removal of CO as a surrogate for COS, as earlier explained in this preamble and as proposed on November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770). We also are finalizing the proposed COS, HCl, and HF emission limits for cupolas and the proposed emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for bonded lines developed as a result of new representative detection limit (RDL) values, new source test data and our approach for calculating MACT floors based on limited data sets, as
discussed in section III.B of the November 2014 supplemental proposal preamble. These final rule requirements
for the Mineral Wool Production
NESHAP are consistent with the provisions discussed in our various proposals.

D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

We are finalizing, as proposed,
amendments to the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established work practice standards for periods of startup
and shutdown under CAA section 112(h) because measurement of the emissions is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Emissions are not at steady state during startup and shutdown (a necessary factor for accurate emissions testing), and the varying stack conditions, gas compositions and low emission rates
make accurate emission measurements impracticable. In addition, the startup period for mineral wool cupolas is usually 2 hours, which is too short a


### 45287 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

time in which to conduct source testing. We are finalizing under CAA section 112(h), as previously proposed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal, standards requiring affected sources to comply with work practices that are used by the best performers during periods of startup and shutdown. The best performers in the mineral wool industry use one of two possible work practices: either they route any cupola emissions that occur during startup and shutdown to an operating baghouse, or, alternatively, operate the cupola during startup and shutdown with three percent excess oxygen. Regarding the first alternative, baghouses achieve the same outlet concentrations regardless of pollutant loading in the emission stream, and fluctuations in pollutants or
exhaust flow rate do not affect the
overall level of emissions at the outlet of this control device. Regarding the second alternative, operating the cupola with excess oxygen prevents the formation of pollutants that would otherwise be routed to existing controls.

In the final rule, we are specifying work practice standards that require items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with subpart DDD to be operating during startup and shutdown, designating when startups and shutdowns begin, and specifying recordkeeping requirements for startup and shutdown periods. We are also revising Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 (General Provisions applicability table) to change several references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We are eliminating or revising certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption.

E. What other changes have been made
to the Mineral Wool Production

NESHAP?

We are finalizing, as proposed,
addition of EPA Methods 26A and 320 in appendix A part 63 for measuring the
concentrations of HCl and HF. We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations no later than July 30, 2018 and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for new sources to comply with the emission limits of the final rule on July 29, 2015, or upon the first cupola campaign, whichever is later, and to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations within 180 days of the applicable compliance date.

We are also adding an alternative operating limit for cupolas that provides owners or operators the option of maintaining the percent excess oxygen in the cupola at or above the level established during the performance test. In addition, we are finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and COS rather than only the surrogates formaldehyde and CO. In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions for ‘‘closed-top cupola,’’ ‘‘open-top cupola,’’ ‘‘combined collection/curing operations’’ and ‘‘incinerator.’’ We are also adding a definition for ‘‘slag.’’ The 2013 supplemental proposal indicated that we would add such a definition (78 FR 22386). Slag is the primary contributing factor to the formation of HF and HCl in the cupola emissions, and is, for some mineral wool formulas, a necessary ingredient for the production of mineral wool. We subcategorized cupolas according to their use of slag as a raw material in the cupola, and are in this final rule defining slag in 40 CFR 63.1196 to mean the by-product materials separated from metals during smelting and refining of

raw ore.

We are also making minor corrections to the citations in Table 1 (part 63 General Provision applicability table) to
reflect both the final amendments in this action, and the revisions that have
been made to the General Provisions

since 1999.

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the new MACT standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

The new MACT standards for the
Mineral Wool Production source category being promulgated in this action are effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing cupolas and combined collection/curing operations is July 30, 2018. New sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29, 2015, or upon initial startup, whichever
is later.

Mineral wool producers are predominantly small businesses. Prior to the November 25, 2011, proposal, we found there was potentially a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), and convened a small business advocacy review (SBAR) panel. In that process, the EPA conducted meetings with mineral wool companies and the Small Business Office of Advocacy in order to determine ways in which the impact
and burden to small entities could be reduced while continuing to meet the requirements of the CAA. Stakeholders requested up to 3 years to comply with the standards once they were promulgated, in order to be able toinstall controls, find sources of lowsulfur coke and low-chloride slag, and to conduct performance testing. In subsequent proposals, we subcategorized cupolas according to design and according to raw material use, and can certify that the final rule will not have a SISNOSE. However, we believe that it is still appropriate to retain the proposed compliance date of 3 years after promulgation because the added compliance emissions testing and any process changes sources needed to comply could become significant if the compliance time were shortened to less than the 3 years allowed for standards developed under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).

G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?

As stated in the proposed preamble to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators of
affected facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.

As mentioned in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal, data will becollected by direct computer-tocomputer electronic transfer using EPAprovided software. As discussed in theNovember 2011 proposal, the EPAprovided software is an electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and instructions for use of
the ERT can be found at http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, and CEDRI can be accessed through the
CDX Web site at http://www.epa.gov/
cdx.

The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is
available at the ERT Web site. The EPA believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the


### 45288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in hard copy.

As mentioned in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal, state, local, and tribal agencies will benefit from
more streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will be
available on the EPA WebFIRE database. The public will also benefit. Having these data publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided software, see the discussion in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal.

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry; state, local, and tribal agencies; and the EPA significant time, money, and effort, while improving the quality of emission inventories, air quality regulations and enhancing the public’s access to this important information.

IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
Mineral Wool Production source category?

For each topic, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the subject,
the EPA’s rationale for the final
decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the dockets for each source category.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we
conducted a residual risk assessment on
the Mineral Wool Production source category and presented the results of this assessment, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the November 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 72798). Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we estimated that the MIR could be up to
4-in-1 million due to actual emissionsand up to 10-in-1 million due to MACTallowable emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde stack emissions. We
estimated that the incidence of cancer
based on actual emissions is 0.0004

excess cancer cases per year or one case every 2,500 years, and that about 1,700 people face a cancer risk greater than 1-
in-1 million due to HAP emissions from the mineral wool production source category.

That risk assessment indicated that
the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the Mineral Wool Production source category could be up to 0.04 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic non-cancer impacts.

Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts indicated the potential for only one pollutant, formaldehyde, to exceed an HQ value of 1 at only one facility in the Mineral Wool Production source category, with a potential maximum HQ up to 8. A refined emissions multiplier of 3 was used to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates.

Consequently, in November 2011 we proposed that risks from this source category were acceptable. In addition, we did not identify cost-effective options that would further reduce risk under our ample margin of safety analysis. Therefore, we proposed that
the current standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We also
determined that HAP emissions from this source category were not expected
to result in adverse environmental
effects.

In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we revised the risk assessment
to reflect new emissions data submitted by the industry following the 2011 proposal, the development of subcategories for HCl and HF emissions from slag- and nonslag-processing cupolas, and subcategories for COS emissions from closed- and open-top cupolas. As noted in the 2013 supplemental proposal, the risks
estimated in our revised assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2) from actual emissions increased slightly (based on the new data) compared to the risk
assessment conducted for the 2011 proposal. The actual MIR for cancer
increased from 4-in-1 million to 10-in1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the source category increased from 0.04 to 0.12 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. The acute noncancer HQ, based on the REL for formaldehyde, increased from 8 to 20. The acute noncancer HQ, based on the AEGL–1 for formaldehyde, increased

from 0.4 to 1.1. While the risk increased slightly based on the new source test data, we noted that that our findings regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety remained unchanged.

In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we also revised the draft risk assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2)

based on new emissions data collected by the industry and updates to the

model and model libraries. The new test data that were received did not change

our estimate of risk from actual emissions when compared to the risk

assessment conducted for the 2013 supplemental proposal. The risk from mineral wool production continued to be driven by formaldehyde and to be

well within a level we consider to be acceptable. The MIR for cancer for

actual baseline emissions remained 10- in-1 million, with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 20 for the REL and at

1 for the AEGL–1. The maximum

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based

on actual emissions remained at 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts.

The MIR for cancer from mineral wool production due to allowable emissions (under the original MACT standard) was

estimated to be 30-in-1 million (formaldehyde). Facilities actually emit formaldehyde at levels lower than

allowed under the 1999 MACT standard, and the limits in the final rule codify formaldehyde (and the other HAP) limits at the actual emissions levels. As a result, the potential MIR for

cancer due to allowable emissions after implementation of the standard is

estimated to be 10-in-1 million. Therefore, the MIR based on emissions at the level of this standard ( i.e., what sources are permitted to emit) decreased by a factor of 3 from MACT-allowable

levels. Additional information on the

risk assessment can be found in the document titled, ‘‘Residual Risk

Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing in Support of the June

2015 Final Rule’’ available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 1041).


### 45289 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

2. How did the risk review change for
the Mineral Wool Production source category?

We have not changed any aspect of
the risk assessment since the November 2014 supplemental proposal.

3. What key comments did we receive
on the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category, and what are our responses?

The comments received on the proposed risk review were generally supportive of our determination of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety analysis and requirement for additional control. A summary of the comments received regarding the risk acceptability and ample margin of safety analysis and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response
document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). None of the public comments resulted in changes to the conclusions of our risk analysis.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk
review for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

As explained in the various proposals and in section IV.A.1 of this preamble,
our assessment of residual risk from the
Mineral Wool Production source category shows that risks from the source category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and prevent an adverse environmental effect. We are, therefore, not requiring
additional controls and are thus readopting the existing standards under section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review that focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for sources of
HAP in the Mineral Wool Production source category. As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72798), existing cupolas are controlled using baghouses, and bonded lines are controlled using thermal oxidizers. We did not identify any relevant cost-effective developments in technologies, practices, or processes since promulgation of the
1999 NESHAP that would further reduce HAP emissions. Therefore, we did not propose any changes to the 1999 NESHAP as a result of our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for
the Mineral Wool Production source category. Additional information regarding the technology review for the
Mineral Wool Production source category can be found in the document titled, ‘‘Section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for the Final Mineral Wool
NESHAP’’ available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041).

2. How did the technology review change for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

We have not changed any aspect of the technology review for this source category since the November 2014 supplemental proposal.

3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses?

The comments received on our technology review and findings were generally supportive. A summary of the comments received regarding the technology review and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1041). We note that none of the public comments and information received in response to the November 2014 supplemental proposal provided data relevant to the technology review, and we made no changes to the technology review based on the

comments.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review?

As explained in the various proposals and in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we did not identify any cost-effective developments in practices, processes
and controls used to reduce emissions from the mineral wool production industry. Therefore, consistent with our proposals, we are not making any changes to the standards as a result of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review.

C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously unregulated pollutants?

In our November 2011 proposal, we proposed revisions to the 1999 NESHAP under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We proposed to remove unreasonable surrogates, to set limits for each HAP emitted that was previously regulated under a surrogate, and to set limits for previously unregulated HAP. These revisions included removing CO as a surrogate for COS and removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for methanol and phenol; proposing emission limits for COS from cupolas, formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from combined collection and curing operations; and proposing emissions limits for previously unregulated pollutants ( i.e., HCl and HF emitted from cupolas).

In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we made changes to the previously proposed emission limits for phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol

based on new emissions test data. We further proposed subcategories for COS emissions from cupolas based on cupola design. Finally, we proposed subcategories for HF and HCl from cupolas based on whether they processed slag.

In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we revised emission limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for cupolas and bonded lines as a result of new information regarding detection limits (and consistent with our procedures for ensuring that emission

limits are not set below the minimum level that can be accurately measured), new source test data and our approach for calculating MACT floors based on

limited data sets.

2. How did we change our proposed emission limits for pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate or that were previously unregulated?

Our final emission limits for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate, and previously unregulated pollutants did not change since our most recent proposal in November 2014.

3. What key comments did we receive on pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and on previously unregulated pollutants?

We received comments both supporting and objecting to our use of the UPL in calculating MACT floors and the way we treat limited datasets for these pollutants. The commenters did not provide new information or a basis for the EPA to change the proposed emission limits, and did not show that facilities cannot comply with the MACT

standards. The comments related to the proposed emission limits for pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate and that were previously unregulated are in the comment summary and the response document

available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041).


### 45290 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously unregulated pollutants?

As we discussed in the preamble for the November 2014 supplemental proposal and provided in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are finalizing, as proposed, the emission limits for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously unregulated pollutants. Three surrogate relationships were in place in the Mineral Wool MACT standard, and we reviewed each of these to determine whether they were reasonable surrogates. We found that the relationship of formaldehyde, methanol and phenol emissions tend to be specific to the binder formulation of an individual product. We found that the surrogacy of CO for COS was not reasonable because the two pollutants are not invariably present and the relationships tend to be specific to the site. We retained the surrogacy of PM for non-mercury HAP metals because
control of PM achieves the same level of control for non-mercury HAP metals, regardless of the concentration of those
metals in the PM or whether the
concentration of those metals varies in
the PM.

We requested and obtained HAPspecific emissions testing for all HAP emitted by all processes in the mineral wool industry. Emissions of PM, HF, HCl, and COS were measured from at least one cupola in operation at each facility, and emissions of formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol were measured at
the three bonded lines that were in operation in 2010. As a result of the information we gathered, we are finalizing limits for all measured HAP and for the collection process, which emits HAP but was not regulated under
the 1999 MACT standard. We are not changing the PM emission limit as a result of the information we gathered.

HF and HCl were not previously regulated, and the emissions of these pollutants depend upon whether slag is used in the cupola. Slag is a raw material in the mineral wool industry that is a waste product of electric arc furnaces at steel plants. Depending on
the end-use of the mineral wool product, slag is a needed ingredient in
some mineral wool formulations and an undesirable ingredient in others. The use of slag as a raw material in the mineral wool cupola causes ‘‘shot’’ (small pellets of iron) to form in the mineral wool product. The quality of some mineral wool products (such as that used for hydroponic gardening) is affected by the presence of shot, and, as a result, facilities making such products do not use slag in their raw materials. Consequently, their emissions of HF and HCl are lower. Two subcategories of cupolas reflect whether slag is processed in the cupola.

Emissions of COS are affected by whether a cupola is designed as a closed cupola (which results in lower COS emissions) or an open cupola (which results in higher COS emissions). Two subcategories of cupolas reflect this design criteria.

Data collected from the mineral wool industry showed three bonded lines were in operation at the time of data
collection in 2010. The bonded lines include both collection (the process in which the fibers are formed and sprayed with a phenol/formaldehyde binding agent); and curing, the thermosetting process that cures the binder. Collection was not regulated under the 1999 MACT standard, the emissions from both the curing and collection processes are vented to the same line, and the emissions from these processes can be measured together. These combined collection and curing operations emit phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol as a result of the phenolic resin used to produce the bonded product. We are finalizing limits for combined collection and curing operations according to three different designs: Vertical, horizontal,
and drum. The final emission limits for the mineral wool industry are shown
above in Table 2 of section III of this preamble.

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category

1. What SSM provisions did we propose
for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA,
emissions standards or limitations must
be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.

We have therefore eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent
with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established work practice standards for those periods. We also revised Table 1 of the General Provisions applicability table in several respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also

eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions that are related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized again in section IV.D of this preamble, in the rule at 40 CFR 63.1389, and in the General Provisions Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

2. How did the SSM provisions change
for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

We have not changed any aspect of the proposed SSM provisions since the November 2014 supplemental proposal.

3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are our responses?

We received comments regarding the proposed revisions to remove the SSM exemptions for the Mineral Wool Production source category. Comments from industry representatives expressed support for the proposed work practice
standards. Another commenter
contended that we should have
established numerical emission limits.
As we noted in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68016), the EPA may promulgate a work practice rather than an emissions
standard when measurement of the emissions is technically and economically practicable. In the case of this source category, emissions are not at steady state during startup and shutdown (a necessary factor for accurate emissions testing), and the varying stack conditions, gas compositions, and flow rates make

accurate emission measurements impracticable. In addition, startup period for mineral wool cupolas, typically 2 hours, is too short a time to conduct source testing.

The commenters did not provide new
information or a basis for the EPA to change the proposed provisions and did not show that facilities cannot comply with the work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The comments related to the proposed
revisions to remove the SSM exemptions and our specific responses
to those comments can be found in the comment summary and response
document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041).


### 45291 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM provisions?

For the reasons provided above, in the preamble for the proposed rule and provided in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or modified inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. For periods of startup and shutdown, we are finalizing the work practices of the best performers, as proposed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal. Owners/operators may choose to comply using two potential options during startup and shutdown. One, cupola emissions may be controlled using the control devices that meet the limits of the standard during normal operation, or two, the cupola may be operated during startup and shutdown with 3 percent or more excess oxygen. Additionally, sources must maintain records of the startup and shutdown option they practice, and must monitor and keep records of the parameters of the operating control device(s) or the oxygen level of the cupola during these periods. The controls of startup and shutdown emissions practiced by the best performers in the source category
are sufficient so that no additional
standards are needed to address emissions during startup or shutdown periods.

E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral
Wool Production NESHAP

1. What other changes did we propose
for the Mineral Wool Production

NESHAP?
a. Electronic Reporting

As stated in the preamble to the November 2011 proposed rule, the EPA proposed electronic reporting requirements. See section III.G of this preamble for more information on what we proposed (and what we are finalizing) for electronic reporting.

b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency

We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for new sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations within 180 days of the applicable compliance date and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations by July 30, 2018 and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Methods 26A and 320 in appendix A of part 63 for measuring the concentrations of HCl and HF; and EPA Method 318 for measuring the concentrations of COS, formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. In addition, we are finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to replace

references in the 1999 NESHAP to the surrogates CO and formaldehyde with references to specific HAP (formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for the surrogate formaldehyde, and COS for the surrogate CO).

2. How did the provisions regarding these other changes to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP change since proposal?

We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; definitions or revisions to the General Provision applicability table. 3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP, and what are our responses?

We received no key comments regarding electronic reporting, testing methods and frequency, definitions, and

revisions to the General Provisions applicability table. A summary of the

comments we did receive and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document

available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041).

4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other changes

to the Mineral Wool Production

NESHAP?

There was no information in the public comments that affected the rationale for these provisions that was presented in the various proposals. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; definitions and revisions to the General Provision applicability

table.

V. What is included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for major sources?

This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and amends the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP

based on those determinations. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP ( e.g., compliance dates) as

discussed in section V.F of this preamble. In addition, we are finalizing the emission limits for major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category as shown in Table 3 of this preamble.



### TABLE 

### 3—E MISSION 

### L IMITS FOR 

### W OOL 

### F IBERGLASS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### M AJOR 

### S OURCES

[lb pollutant/ton glass pulled]

Process HAP Emission limit

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

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

Methanol ................................................... 5.6

1.4

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

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

Methanol ................................................... 2.6

0.44

0.35 Existing and New Furnaces ......................................................................................... PM ........... .................................................. 0.33 Existing and New Gas-Fired Furnaces ........................................................................ Chromium compounds .. ............................ 0.00025


### 45292 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing emission limits for chromium emissions from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces of 0.00025 pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We are also requiring that facilities establish the materials mix, including the percentagesof raw materials and cullet, used in gasfired glass-melting furnaces during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the

chromium emission limit. We are requiring that the percentage of cullet in the material mix be continually

maintained at or below the level established during the most recent performance test showing compliance

with the standard.

We note that although we have adopted these same standards, under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on independent statutory authorities and independent rationales. Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?

We determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant

revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the existing MACT

standards to include an emission limit for glass-melting furnaces of 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled as we proposed in April 2013. In this action, we are also revising the proposed chromium emission limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled, based

on our re-assessment of emissions data for newly-rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting

furnaces.

We note that although we have adopted the total chromium compounds

standards under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on independent statutory authorities and independent rationales. Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable. C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?

This action finalizes the HAP-specific limits proposed in November 2014 that we developed under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) as a result of removing the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for methanol and phenol on FA lines. We are also eliminating the subcategories for FA lines because the technical bases for distinguishing the subcategories when the original rule was developed no longer exist and we are promulgating emission limits at the MACT floor level for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol.

As explained in section V.H of this preamble, we are not, at this time, finalizing limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines.

D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?

This action finalizes the work practice
standards for HCl and HF emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities developed under CAA section 112(h) as proposed in November 2014 (79 FR 68023). These amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP are
consistent with the amendments
discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal.

E. What are the final rule amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown?

We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established work practice standards in this rule that apply during startup and shutdown periods. We are revising Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63 (General Provisions applicability table) to change several references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We also
eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. We are specifying that items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN must be operated during startup and shutdown. We are finalizing the specifications designating when startup and shutdown begins and recordkeeping requirements for demonstrating compliance during startup and shutdown periods.

We determined that facilities in this source category can meet the applicable work practice standards by following the startup and shutdown procedures that we identified as representative of the procedures employed by the best performing units during periods of startup and shutdown.

Gas-fired furnaces use an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to control emissions during normal operations. The best performing gas-fired furnaces route emissions during startup and shutdown
to the control device. We note that operators of gas-fired furnaces that formerly turned off the controls during startup or shutdown would no longer be
allowed to do so.

Electric furnaces use baghouses to control emissions during normal operations. Until the crust is formed on top of the molten glass (and startup ends) the temperature of the gases that would be routed to the baghouse would cause the bags to catch fire. The best performing electric furnaces use only cullet (which emits PM at extremely low levels when melted) and clean fuels (natural gas, which does not emit PM when combusted) during startup and
shutdown in order to minimize PM emissions during these periods.

F. What other changes have been made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major sources)?

We are finalizing, as proposed, the
addition of EPA Method 29 for measuring the concentrations of chromium. We are finalizing the requirement, as proposed, to maintain the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 ° F when using Method 5 to measure PM
emissions from furnaces. We are also amending the NESHAP to allow owners or operators to measure PM emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method
5 or Method 29.

We are finalizing, as proposed, the
addition of EPA Method 318 as an alternative test method for measuring the concentration of phenol and
methanol and EPA Method 308 as an alternative test method for measuring
the concentration of methanol. We are finalizing, as proposed in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22402), the replacement of a minimum sampling time of 1 hour with the specification to collect 10 spectra when using EPA Method 318. When using Method 316 to measure formaldehyde, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to collect a minimum sampling volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm); however, we are not finalizing the


### 45293 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

proposed minimum sampling run time of 2 hours. We are also finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol (rather than the surrogate, formaldehyde), chromium, HCl, and HF. Additionally, for existing sources we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the
chromium emission limit for furnaces no later than July 31, 2017 and annually thereafter; to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit for furnaces no later than July 31, 2017 and every 5 years thereafter; and to demonstrate compliance with the phenol, formaldehyde and methanol emission limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 2017 and every 5 years thereafter.

We are finalizing the requirement for new sources to comply with the emission limits on July 29, 2015, or upon the initial startup, whichever is later, and to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits for furnaces and FA lines no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date. Following
the initial test to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit, owners or operators
must test for chromium emissions annually. For all other pollutants, owners or operators must conduct performance tests every 5 years after the initial test to demonstrate compliance
with the emissions limits. Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the compliance test schedule for major and

area sources.



### TABLE 

### 4—W OOL 

### F IBERGLASS 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### T EST 

### S CHEDULE FOR 

### M AJOR 

### S OURCES

Process Pollutant(s) Initial test dates Subsequent testing frequency Existing sources New sources

FA Line ...................... Phenol Formaldehyde

Methanol. 2 years after publication of the

final rule amendments in the **Federal Register**

. Within 180 days after publication

in the **Federal Register** , or 180days after initial startup, whichever is later. Every 5 years thereafter.

All Furnace Types ...... PM Gas-fired Furnace ...... Chromium compounds Annually thereafter.

We are finalizing, as proposed, the clarification that 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN applies to FA lines, regardless of what products are
manufactured on the FA line.

In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions for ‘‘gas-fired glass-melting furnace’’ and ‘‘incinerator.’’ We are also revising the
definition of ‘‘new source’’ and the trigger date for the requirement to
submit notifications of intent to
construct/reconstruct an affected source
to reflect the date of the initial RTR proposal (November 25, 2011).

We are finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring requirement for furnaces and FA lines to provide flexibility in establishing an appropriate monitoring parameter.

We are also making minor corrections to the citations in Table 1 (part 63 General Provision applicability table) to
reflect the final amendments in this action, and the revisions that have been
made to the General Provisions since

1999.

G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

The revisions to the MACT standards for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category being promulgated in this action are effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing sources is July 31, 2017. New sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29, 2015, or upon initial startup, whichever
is later. The effective and compliance dates
finalized in this action are consistent with the dates we presented in the 2014 supplemental proposal.

H. What is the status of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT
standard amendments under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS Manufacturing Lines?

We are not finalizing the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS manufacturing lines in this final action. On November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72791), we proposed to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol and we proposed formaldehyde, methanol and phenol emission limits for RS and FA lines. On April 15, 2013 (72 FR 22387), we proposed revised emission
limits for RS lines based on clarification of test data received from the industry during the comment period. We explained that since the 1999 promulgation of the MACT standards, many companies had discontinued the use of formaldehyde. However, they did not distinguish between the bonded lines that still used formaldehyde and those that did not. We had, therefore,
included some data for HAP-free lines along with the data for lines still using formaldehyde when we developed the emission limits proposed in the November 2011 proposal (78 FR 22387). In the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68203), we also proposed revised formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits

for new RS lines as a result of our updated approach for evaluating limited datasets (79 FR 68023–24).

The EPA is not finalizing these proposed CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) standards in this action because we

believe the data that we relied on in proposing these standards are not sufficiently related to current operations

or emissions from RS bonded lines. The emissions and process data available to EPA were collected beginning in 2003. As previously explained, since that time, sources have phased out the use of a phenol/formaldehyde binder from approximately 95 percent of the lines on which it was previously used. We have

also found out that sources often can no longer either identify the products that

were tested or on the lines on which those products had been manufactured. Moreover, when sources can identify the products that were tested, those products are now produced using a HAP-free binder, and the product lines that now operate using a phenol/ formaldehyde binder do not bear similarity in size, end use, production rate or loss on ignition (LOI) percent to the tested product line. As a result, the data no longer represent current industry conditions, most notably the significant reduction in the use of phenol/formaldehyde binders in wool fiberglass manufacturing. Consequently,
we have issued a CAA section 114 ICR to wool fiberglass facilities to obtain updated formaldehyde, methanol, and


### 45294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

phenol emissions and process data for RS manufacturing lines.

I. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?

The requirements for electronic reporting of performance test data for wool fiberglass manufacturing major
sources are the same as the requirements for the mineral wool production source category. See section III.G of this preamble for a description of the requirements.

VI. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the
EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response
document available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
conducted a residual risk assessment and presented the results of this assessment, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the November 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 72801). Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we estimated that the MIR could be as high as 40-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to 60-in-1
million due to MACT-allowable emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde
and hexavalent chromium emissions.
We stated that the risk levels due to
actual and MACT-allowable emissions were acceptable; however, we proposed
an emission limit for total chromium (0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled) in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we revised the draft risk
assessment to reflect new emissions
data for hexavalent chromium that we collected from all glass-melting furnaces available for testing in response to our October 28, 2011, CAA section 114 ICR. These revisions reduced our estimate of

risk from actual emissions when compared to the risk assessment

conducted for the November 2011 proposal. The risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing was driven by formaldehyde and hexavalent

chromium. The MIR for actual baseline

emissions decreased from 40-in-1-

million to 20-in-1 million (formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the

REL and at 2 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum chronic

non-cancer TOSHI value based on

actual emissions remained at 0.2 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts.

In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we presented the revised draft risk assessment to reflect updates to the

model and model libraries and also retained the proposed emission limits for chromium compounds for existing and new gas-fired glass-melting

furnaces. These revisions did not significantly change our estimate of risk from actual emissions when compared

to the risk assessment conducted for the April 2013 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68020). The risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing was driven by formaldehyde and hexavalent
chromium and continued to be well
within a level we consider to be acceptable. The MIR for actual baseline
emissions remained 20-in-1 million (formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the
REL and decreased from 2 to 1 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based
on actual emissions decreased from 0.2 to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. Overall, we considered the risk to be acceptable.

Based on information provided by the industry, 95 percent of the RS lines no longer use phenol-formaldehyde binders and are no longer major sources. However, this phase out is not reflected in the facility file data on which the risk assessment was based. Throughout the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, these binders continued to be phased out as this rule was developed. The risk analysis we conducted for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category overstates the risk because of the continuing phase out. Therefore, we believe the risks from wool fiberglass manufacturing from actual emissions
are lower than the risks we estimated. 2. How did the risk review change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

The baseline risk assessment has not changed since the November 2014 supplemental proposal. The MIR based
on actual emissions remains at 20-in-1 million with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the REL and 1 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
value based on actual emissions is 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts.

The MIR based on MACT-allowable emissions could be as high as 60-in-1 million, which we believe to be a
conservative estimate based on four factors: (1) At one time, there were at least 60 RS lines in the industry, (2) industry has stated that 95 percent of RS lines no longer use formaldehyde as a binder, (3) Industry has stated that there are only 5 RS lines left that use a phenol/formaldehyde binder, and (4) Title V permit records indicate that 20
out of a total of 30 facilities have completely phased out their use of formaldehyde as a raw material throughout the facility.

We conducted a new assessment of the risks remaining after implementation of these final rule
revisions. The revised assessment of post-control risks reflects the adjustment of the chromium compounds emission limit and the EPA’s deferral of setting standards for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol from RS lines. Specifically, the risk
assessment takes into account the change in the chromium compoundsemission limit for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces from 0.00006 pounds of chromium per ton of glass pulled to 0.00025 pounds of chromium per ton of glass pulled, the emission limits for formaldehyde at new and existing FA lines (2.6 pounds per ton and 5.6 pounds per ton, respectively) and the
current emission estimates for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol
from RS lines. The MIR for cancer after implementation of the RTR could be up to 60-in-1 million (equal to the current risk estimates for allowables) but, as discussed above, this is a conservative, upper-end estimate. Consequently, we believe risks are significantly lower than estimated and the standards provide an ample margin of safety.

Emissions of chromium compounds are a secondary risk driver to formaldehyde, and the risk is 7-in-1
million based on current actual emissions. It is important to note that,


### 45295 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

6 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available at: http:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.

7 U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and

available on-line at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. even though risks are acceptable, the
health risks from hexavalent chromium emissions from wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities could be much higher in the future without a chromium compounds emission limit. To capture this scenario, we conducted an auxiliary risk analysis in which we assumed all wool fiberglass furnaces emitted
hexavalent chromium at the same rate as the reasonable highest-emitting furnace. The results of the auxiliary risk analysis showed that, in the absence of
a chromium emission limit and with furnaces emitting at the assumed emission rate, risk at four facilities is expected to increase over time to greater than 100-in-1 million, due to increasing chromium emissions occurring with furnace age. Therefore, we determined
that the chromium emission limit in the final rule, which will limit the MIR
cancer risk from hexavalent chromium emissions from this category to no higher than 3-in-1 million, is necessary to provide an ample margin of safety.

Regarding chromium compounds, as discussed above, we received comments on the proposed chromium compounds limit that indicated that a newly-rebuilt furnace, which we believe is the likely compliance technology, may not be able to demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limit. The comment was based on one specific example from the 2012 test data that showed a 1-year old gas-fired glass-melting furnace emitting approximately 0.0002 poundschromium per ton of glass. We reevaluated the proposed chromium compounds limit in light of information on this technology, and based on the data available, we have revised the chromium compounds limit and are now finalizing an emissions limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We
conducted an assessment of the risk attributable to all HAP for each facility and determined that increasing the chromium compound emission limit from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled has a minimal effect on the post-RTR risks because these risks are largely driven by formaldehyde emissions. Specifically, at the chromium compounds emission limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled, the MIR due to only chromium emissions for the source category is 3-in-1 million.

The results of the risk assessment are presented in more detail in the final
residual risk memorandum titled
‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule,’’ which can be found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–

1042.

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources), and what are our responses?

We received comments in support of and against our proposed determination of risk acceptability, ample margin of safety analysis, and requirement for additional control. A summary of these comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042). The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the risk assessment for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and our responses to these
comments. Additional comments on the risk assessment and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042).

Comment: One commenter stated that
the EPA should find the acute health risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to be unacceptable. The
commenter noted that the EPA’s
assessment in the November 2011 proposal found an acute risk of 30 for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and argued that the EPA
should find the health risk to be unacceptable under CAA section 112(f)(2) based on this acute risk.

The commenter stated that the EPA has a presumption that an HQ below 1 is safe, that the EPA has stated that a HQ less than or equal to 1 indicates that adverse noncancer effects are not likely to occur, and that exposure below that
threshold level is safe. The commenter added that the EPA did not adequately explain why the formaldehyde risks were found to be acceptable although they are 30 times higher than the
threshold.

The commenter asserted that, by applying the outdated integrated risk information system (IRIS) dose-response values in determining formaldehyde inhalation exposure risk, the EPA is not basing the proposed rule on the best available science. The commenter urged the EPA to revise the proposed rule to accurately convey the best available science and a weight-of-evidence approach in compliance with the Information Quality Act (IQA)
Guidelines and Executive Order 13563. In particular, the commenter argued that the EPA should reject the 1991 IRIS dose-response value and incorporate the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT, 1999) cancer doseresponse value for formaldehyde.

Response: As discussed in sections V.A and VI.A of this preamble, we
revised the risk assessment for wool fiberglass facilities for the November 2014 supplemental proposal. For wool fiberglass facilities, the MIR for actual
baseline emissions remained 20-in-1 million (formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the
REL and decreased from 2 to 1 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based
on actual emissions decreased from 0.2 to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. We found that the risks were acceptable.

We note that the acute risks are based on an REL value, which is defined as
‘‘the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for specified exposure duration.’’ Moreover, we note that the
acute risk assessment is a worst-case assessment. For example, the acute

assessment assumes worst-case meteorology, peak emissions and an individual being located at the site of
maximum concentration for an hour. Taken together, the EPA does not believe that in all RTR reviews, HQ values must be less than or equal to 1. Rather, the EPA finds that acute risks must be judged on a case-by-case basis
in the context of all the available health evidence and risk analyses.

To better characterize the potential
health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) peer review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies, 6 we generally examine a wider range of available acute health metrics ( e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our
chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB’s acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps
and inconsistencies in acute reference
values than there are in chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays 7 for HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values ( i.e., occupational and


### 45296 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

8 U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and

available on-line at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. international values) to provide a more complete risk characterization. The EPA uses AEGL and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) values (when available) in conjunction with REL values (again, when available) to characterize potential acute health risks. However, it is often the case that HAP
do not have all of these acute reference benchmark values. In these instances, the EPA describes the potential acute
health risk in relation to the acute
health values that are available. Importantly, when interpreting the results, we are careful to identify the benchmark being used and the health implications associated with any specific benchmark being exceeded. By definition, the acute California reference exposure level (CA–REL) represents a health-protective level of exposure, with no risk anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the health risk from higher-level exposures is unknown. Therefore, when
a CA–REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 level is available ( i.e., levels at which mild effects are anticipated in the general public for a single exposure),
we have used them as a second comparative measure. Historically, comparisons of the estimated maximum off-site 1-hour exposure levels have not been typically made to occupational levels for the purpose of characterizing public health risks in RTR assessments. This is because occupational ceiling values are not generally considered protective for the general public since they are designed to protect the worker population (presumed healthy adults) for short duration ( i.e., less than 15 minute) increases in exposure. As a result, for most chemicals, the 15- minute occupational ceiling values are set at levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL– 1, making comparisons to them
irrelevant unless the AEGL–1 or ERPG–
1 levels are exceeded. Such is not the case when comparing the available
acute inhalation health effect reference values for formaldehyde. 8

Thus, while this means we cannot rule out the potential for acute concerns due to formaldehyde emissions fromthese facilities, we note that the worstcase acute HQs are based on conservative assumptions ( e.g., worstcase meteorology coinciding with peak
short-term 1-hour emissions from each emission point, with a person located at the point of maximum concentration during that hour). We also note that, as stated earlier, the emissions estimates for formaldehyde are expected to be an overestimate of emissions, further supporting our determination that acute risks are not a significant concern for the wool fiberglass source category.

Comment: One commenter stated that AEGLs or ERPGs were developed for accidental release emergency planning and are not appropriate for assessing daily human exposure to toxic air pollutants because they do not include adequate safety and uncertainty factors. The commenter stated that they are not meant to evaluate the acute impacts
from routine emissions that occur over the life of a facility and cannot be relied upon to protect the public from the adverse effects of exposure to toxic air pollutants. The commenter concluded that their use is not appropriate in risk assessments and urged the EPA to
increase its reliance on the California RELs to address acute exposures in the
residual risk assessments.

Response: The EPA does not rely exclusively upon AEGL or ERPG values for assessment of acute exposures. Rather, the EPA’s approach is to
consider various acute health effect reference values (see the preamble to the November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72781)), including the California REL, in assessing the potential for risks from acute exposures. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB’s peer
review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies, we generally examine a wider range of available acute health metrics ( e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do
for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB’s acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
inconsistencies in acute reference
values than there are in chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays for HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values ( i.e., occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk characterization. As discussed in the preamble to the November 2011 proposal, the exposure guidelines the EPA considers depends on which exposure guidelines are
available for the various HAP emitted.
The EPA uses AEGL and ERPG values (when available) in conjunction with REL values (when available) to characterize potential acute health risks. However, it is often the case that HAP
do not have all of these acute reference benchmark values. In these instances, the EPA describes the potential acute health risk in relation to the acute
health values that are available. Importantly, when interpreting the results, we are careful to identify the benchmark being used and the health implications associated with any specific benchmark being exceeded.

Comment: According to one commenter, the EPA‘s multipathway
risk assessment fell short because the
EPA did not use ‘‘allowable’’ emissions for this assessment and the proposed rule shows multipathway risks that are 60 times greater than the EPA’s
threshold. The commenter stated that the EPA acknowledged in its 2014 risk
assessment that the emissions allowed by the standard may be up to 3 times greater than actual emissions for phenol, methanol, and formaldehyde, such that the HQ of 30 could be 3 times higher
based on allowable emissions. The commenter stated that by using actual emissions, the EPA’s analysis is likely to
be an underestimate of the health risks from multipathway routes of exposure. The commenter supports the EPA’s use
of ‘‘allowable’’ as well as ‘‘actual’’
emissions to assess inhalation risk.

Response: Consistent with previous risk assessments, the EPA considers
both allowable and actual emissions in assessing chronic risks under CAA section 112(f)(2) (See, e.g., National
Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005); proposed and final National Emission Standards for Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006). This approach is
both reasonable and consistent with the flexibility inherent in the Benzene NESHAP framework for assessing acceptable risk and ample margin of safety, as developed in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). As a general matter, modeling allowable emission levels is inherently
reasonable since this reflects the
maximum level sources could emit and still comply with national emission standards. But, it is also reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in the acceptable risk and ample margin of safety analyses.
See National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19992, 19998, April 15, 2005). The commenter claims that limiting our review to actual
emissions would be inconsistent with the applicability section of Part 63 rules. As explained, however, we did not limit
our review to actual emissions.

The commenter also urged the agency to rely on allowable emissions for the purpose of our acute assessment. The


### 45297 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

use of allowable emissions was not
considered due to the conservative assumptions used to gauge worst-case potential acute health effects. The conservative assumptions built into the acute health risk screening analysis include: (1) Use of peak 1-hour emissions that are, on average, 10 times the annual average 1-hour emission rates; (2) that all emission points experience peak emissions concurrently; (3) worst-case meteorology (from 1 year of local meteorology); and (4) that a person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact during this same 1- hour period. Thus, performing an acute
screen based on allowable emissions would be overly conservative and at best, of questionable utility to decision
makers.

Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA does not have authority to consider ‘‘total facility’’ emissions in conducting the residual risk assessments for a given source category. The commenter argued that it would be impossible for the EPA to fulfill its unambiguous obligation for CAA section 112(f) standards to protect public health with an ample margin of safety in cases where facilities contain sources in a category where the 8-year deadline for conducting the CAA section 112(f) risk review precedes the adoption of MACT standards for other
sources at the facilities. One commenter added that CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) requires EPA to promulgate standards on a source category basis. Another
commenter continued that this provision unambiguously requires the CAA section 112(f) risk assessment to be focused exclusively on ‘‘emissions from a source in the category or subcategory,’’ asserting that the EPA does not have authority to consider emissions from any sources other than those in the source category or subcategory under
review at that time.

Response: We disagree that examining facility-wide risk in a risk assessment conducted under CAA section 112(f) exceeds the EPA’s authority. The development of facility-wide risk estimates provides additional information about the potential cumulative risks in the vicinity of the RTR sources, as one means of informing potential risk-based decisions about the RTR source category in question. While we recognize that, because these riskestimates were derived from facilitywide emissions estimates which have not generally been subjected to the same level of engineering review as the source category emission estimates, they may
be less certain than our risk estimates for the source category in question, they remain important for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken into
consideration.

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of the two-step process for developing standards to address residual risk and interpret ‘‘acceptable risk’’ and ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ as developed in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). In the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA rejected approaches that would have mandated consideration of background levels of pollution in assessing the acceptability of risk, concluding that ‘‘. . . comparison of acceptable risk
should not be associated with levels in polluted urban air. With respect to considering other sources of risk from benzene exposure and determining the acceptable risk level for all exposures to benzene, the EPA considers this inappropriate because only the risk
associated with the emissions under
consideration are relevant to the regulation being established and, consequently, the decision being made.’’ (54 FR 38044, 38061, September 14, 1989).

Although not appropriate for
consideration in the determination of acceptable risk, we note that background risks or contributions to risk from sources outside the source category
under review could be one of the relevant factors considered in the ample margin of safety determination, along with cost and economic factors, technological feasibility, and other factors. Background risks and
contributions to risk from sources
outside the facilities under review were not considered in the ample margin of safety determination for this source category, mainly because of the significant uncertainties associated with
emissions estimates for such sources. Our approach here is consistent with the approach we took regarding this issue in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) RTR (71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006), which the court upheld in the face of claims that the EPA had not adequately considered background.

In our November 2011 proposal, we explained that for these source categories, there are no other significant HAP emissions sources present at wool fiberglass manufacturing and mineral wool production facilities beyond those included in the source category. We also explained that all significant HAP
sources have been included in the source category risk analysis. Wetherefore concluded that the facilitywide risk is essentially the same as the source category risk and that no separate facility-wide analysis was necessary (76 FR 72783, November 25, 2011). Our evaluation of facility-wide risks did not change our decisions under CAA section 112(f)(2) about acceptability and ample margin of safety of the risks associated with the wool fiberglass source categories.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

For the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, we have

determined that the current MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable

level. We have further evaluated the cost, emissions reductions, energy implications and cost effectiveness of the total chromium compounds emission limits being promulgated in

this final rule and have determined that they are cost effective, technically feasible and will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental

effects.

For chromium emissions, we are finalizing the emission limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, under CAA section 112(f)(2).

This is based on our assessment of emissions from newly-rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. Because commenters provided new information indicating that cullet use is tied to increasing chromium emissions from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, we are also requiring that facilities establish the materials mix, including the percentagesof raw materials and cullet, used in gasfired glass-melting furnaces during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the

chromium emission limit. Affected sources must maintain the percentage of

cullet in the material mix at or below the level established during the most recent performance test showingcompliance with the standard. If a gasfired glass-melting furnace uses 100 percent cullet during the most recent performance test showing compliance with the standard, then monitoring of

the cullet use on that furnace is not required until the next annual performance test.


### 45298 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

B. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72803–72804, 72798), we conducted a technology review for FA and RS
bonded lines and for furnaces that focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category that have
occurred since the 1999 MACT rules were promulgated. We consulted the
EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse to identify potential technology advances for processes similar to those covered by the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies.

We also requested information from facilities regarding developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, and conducted site visits, held meetings with industry representatives, and reviewed other information sources, such as technical literature, state and local permittingagency databases and industrysupported databases. For more information, see the ‘‘Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
Memorandum’’ in the docket to this
rule.

Subsequent to the November 2011 proposal, we announced that we had
issued a CAA section 114 ICR to collect
emissions data and other information on glass-melting furnaces in order to regulate area sources in a future action. This resulted in a near complete dataset
for emissions test data on all wool fiberglass furnaces, with the only exceptions being furnaces at facilities
that were closed or that were shut down at the time of the 2012 testing. The dataalso indicated that three gas-fired glassmelting furnaces had been rebuilt and retested, and we also had emissions test
data for these three furnaces for the years before and after the rebuild.

a. Technology Review for Reduction of

PM From Furnaces

For our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), for PM emissions from glass-melting furnaces, we identified
advances in control measures for PM
emissions. These included improvements and advances in control technology, such as application of ESPs, as well as developments in furnace design and the use of high-chromium
furnace refractories that had been made since promulgation of the 1999

NESHAP.

Our technology review included glass-melting furnaces at both area and major sources. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the number of area sources is constantly increasing as a result of the definition of ‘‘wool fiberglass facility’’ in Subpart NNN. For example, in 2002, two out of 33 facilities were area sources, but by December 2012, 20 facilities were area sources (78 FR 22377). As also previously explained, there are no
differences between the furnaces used at major and area sources (78 FR 22377). Therefore, we believed it was appropriate to consider all furnaces in the technology review, under CAA section 112(d)(6).

In our November 2011 proposal, based on the responses to survey data regarding the performance of existing control measures, we proposed an emission limit of 0.014 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled for glass-melting furnaces, under CAA section 112(d)(6).

In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, in response to comments we
received on our November 2011 proposal, we revised the PM limit for furnaces to 0.33 pounds per ton of glass pulled in order to be consistent with our
intentions to set the new limit based on technology review.

We did not propose any further revisions to the proposed PM limit in the November 2014 supplemental proposal.

b. Technology Review for Reduction of
Chromium From Furnaces

In our November 2011 proposal, we identified refractories having a high content of chromium, and their use in wool fiberglass furnaces, as a new development affecting the emissions of chromium compounds from sources since promulgation of the 1999
NESHAP. We reviewed the use of chromium refractories (as compared to non-chromium refractories), as well as other control technologies, such as caustic scrubbers. We analyzed the technical feasibility and the estimated impacts ( e.g., costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions) of applying these developments. We then determined, based on impacts and feasibility, whether it was necessary to propose amendments to the regulation to require any of the identified developments.

We found that, while the furnaces and control technologies are generally the same as those used at promulgation of the MACT standard in 1999, there have been some developments in furnace design and preference in control equipment. We found that developments in refractory technology and in furnace design are inextricably linked. Oxyfuel furnaces were not widely used prior to 1999 in the wool fiberglass industry, due to a number of factors, especially refractory degradation in the wool fiberglass furnace environment. At that time, new technology of the oxyfuel furnace constructed using conventional refractories of that time ( e.g., aluminasilicate, zirconium) limited the furnace life to 4 or 5 years. As a result, air-gas and electric furnaces predominated in the years prior to 1999.

With the advent of new refractory technology, new furnace designs were constructed that could be expected to last longer. With the industry focus upon new furnace designs and technology, the research to develop refractories that could withstand high temperatures, thermal shock and corrosive materials yielded the development of new types of chromium refractory products that could be used for construction of the high-temperature oxyfuel furnace.

As a result, the wool fiberglass industry began a trend toward oxyfuelfurnaces constructed using highchromium refractory products, a trend that commenters noted is expected to continue into the future. This gives rise
to increased chromium emissions as a result of both wool fiberglass raw material formulation (corrosivity) and associated refractory degradation ( i.e., furnace wear). We explained the
mechanisms of chromium emissions at length in our April 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22379–22382) and in our technology review memorandum.

We therefore found that the development of new types of chromium
refractories that could and would beused to construct entire gas-fired glassmelting furnaces for wool fiberglass manufacturing is a development that largely took place after promulgation of
the MACT standard in 1999. We also proposed a total chromium compounds limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled for all glass-melting furnaces.

In the 2013 supplemental proposal,
we did not revise the chromium emission limit for furnaces; however, we explained that there were two general types of furnaces used in this industry: Gas-fired (which include both air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and electric furnaces (which include both steel shell and cold-top electric furnaces). We proposed in the April 2013 supplemental proposal to limit the


### 45299 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

9 64 FR 31695 (June 14, 1999). applicability of the total chromium compounds emission limit to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces for two reasons: (1) Electric furnaces do not have chromium refractories above the glass melt line, and (2) they do not reach the operating temperatures necessary to convert significant amounts of trivalent to hexavalent chromium. As a result, electric furnaces do not emit significant amounts of chromium compounds.

We did not propose to revise the chromium compounds limit in our November 2014 supplemental proposal. However, based on comments received on our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we proposed that sources would be likely to rebuild the furnace rather than install a sodium hydroxide scrubber as previously proposed, due to
revisions to our cost estimate for this control option.

2. How did the technology review change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

We did not make any changes to the technology review for PM from furnaces since the November 2014 supplemental proposal, and we are finalizing the previously proposed emission limit for PM, which is 0.33 lb per ton of glass pulled.

For chromium compounds, based on the public comments and information for glass-melting furnaces received on our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we believe it is necessary to revise our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. Data collected on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in 2010 and 2012
show that three furnaces tested their emissions for chromium in 2010, then shut down or repaired, and then retested in 2012 using the same test methods and protocols. In each case, chromium emissions were reduced by about 2/3 as a result of having rebuilt the furnaces. In two of the three cases,
the chromium emissions before the repair or rebuild were higher than the proposed limit (0.00006 lb/ton of glass). In a third case, a furnace that measured 0.0006 lb/ton of glass in 2010 was
rebuilt and retested for the 2012 ICR.
The second test measured chromium at 0.0002 lb/ton of glass, a level slightly higher than our proposed chromium
emission limit.

While we recognize that the rebuilt furnaces had different designs depending on the company’s objectives at the particular facility, at this time we believe the highest emitting rebuilt furnace was well designed for its intended use. This furnace was rebuilt only one year before testing, at a cost to the company of between $10–12 million. As this is a technology review standard, we consider cost when evaluating the technology. We consider it reasonable to evaluate the technology based on the emission limit achieved by new furnaces, and we are increasing the
chromium limit above what was previously proposed to account for this
new furnace.

The final chromium limit also prevents operation of another furnace
that could emit chromium at the reasonable high-end rate of the highest emitting furnace, as characterized in section VI of this preamble. Finally, we evaluated the cost, using our revised economic analysis, of compliance with
the final limit and found that these costs
are reasonable.

Specifically, we are revising the estimated costs of rebuilding the furnace as an option to comply with the chromium limit. We have determined,
based on the revised costs and data regarding the level of chromium emissions that is achieved by rebuilt furnaces, that it is necessary, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), to revise the proposed emission limit for chromium from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We are finalizing a limit of 0.00025 pounds chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled. This is a higher limit for chromium compounds than previously proposed, because data show that this level can be achieved by furnaces that are rebuilt, while the previously proposed level was shown to be lower than the level supported by the data provided by industry. We explain our decision further in the responses to key comments below and in the Technology Review Memo for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category,
available in the docket to the rule.

We revised the cost estimate for rebuilding a gas-fired glass-melting furnace; however, we did not revise our finding from our technology review that rebuilding the furnace is an effective approach for reducing chromium emissions. We also note, from our technology review, that other options to
reduce chromium from furnaces are available to wool fiberglass
manufacturers. These include raw
material substitution and installation of a properly-designed caustic (sodium hydroxide) scrubber to the outlet of the dry electrostatic precipitator (DESP). These other options are presented in more detail in the Economic Analysis, which accompanied the April 2013 supplemental proposal. 3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses?

We received comments in support of and against our proposed technology review. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and our responses. Additional comments on the technology review and responses can be found in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042).

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s depiction in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72770, November 25, 2011) of high-chromium refractories and furnace control technologies as new technology developments is inaccurate, as demonstrated by the following evidence: (1) High-chromium
refractories have been used in the wool fiberglass industry since the early 1980s; (2) the EPA was aware in 1999 that
chromium was emitted from wool fiberglass plants, as demonstrated by the following statement in its 1999 promulgation preamble ‘‘The hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by the facilities covered by this rule include compounds of three metals (arsenic, chromium, lead) and three organic
HAP,’’ 9 although chromium emissions (and all metal HAP) at that time were insignificant and PM was chosen as a surrogate for those low emissions; and (3) chromium emission reductions have been achieved by the industry since initial MACT implementation in 1999 without using any new control technologies.

Response: Regarding the characterization of high chromium refractories as a new technology,
chromium refractories for use in the glass industry have been a developing technology. According to information provided by the wool fiberglass and refractories industries as part of this rulemaking, significant problems with
their use in the furnace had to be overcome before wool fiberglass furnaces could be constructed using them. For example, when fused-cast refractories started to be developed using high chromium materials, some companies discovered ways to manufacture those products that maintained the integrity of the refractory over a long time and in extreme temperatures, making these products candidates for trials in the wool fiberglass industry. At least two


### 45300 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

10 The North American Refractories Company (NARCO) and the Saint-Gobain Corporation Web sites advertise product lines of refractories that are 50%–95% chromium for use in the glass fiber and wool fiberglass industries. From NARCO’s Web site: ‘‘Wool and C-Glass makers rely on NARCO’s extensive line of chrome-alumina materials, the SERV and JADE brands, available in standard pressed brick, large cast shapes, and Cast-in-Place linings. Supplying the complete furnace refractory package required for this application is a strength of NARCO’’. (http://www.anhrefractories.com/glassrefractory ). From Saint-Gobain’s Web site: ‘‘High temperature sintered chromium oxide based refractories have unequalled resistance against high temperature corrosion by molten SiO 2 -Al 2 O 3 - Fe 2 O 3 -CaO/MgO slags and by certain glass woolcompositions, in an oxidizing environment. SaintGobain Ceramics has pioneered and patented a unique range of chromium oxide-alumina-zirconia refractory compositions, marketed as . . .’’ (from http://www.refractories.saint-gobain.com/ Chromium-Oxide.aspx). major corporations 10 have developed high chrome refractory product lines since 1999, and they characterize these
refractories on their Web sites as ‘new’ products developed for the fiberglass industry. Therefore, our characterization of these products as ‘new’ refers to the improvements in refractory and is not meant to imply that using chromium refractories, in and of itself, is new.

Further, we noted in the November 2011 proposal that we identified ‘‘improvements’’ in PM emissions controls, not that we identified ‘‘new’’ controls. We acknowledged in both our November 2011 and April 2013 supplemental proposals that sodium hydroxide scrubbers are not currently used in the wool fiberglass industry for removal of chromium, but that these controls are used in metallurgical processes and in the chromium electroplating industry for the removal
of hexavalent chromium. We stated in those proposals that we were considering applying scrubber technology to this source category; however, as discussed in the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68020– 69024), the technology basis for the chromium standard is more frequent furnace rebuilds, not scrubber technology.

Moreover, as we explained in our 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22380), the type of furnace used to produce wool fiberglass at the highest emitting wool fiberglass manufacturing source was the type of furnace that is expected to dominate the industry in the future as a new and very efficient energy source. The oxyfuel furnace was
not identified in our 1999 MACT standard as a separate technology. While we acknowledge that wool fiberglass furnaces are not ‘new’ technologies, the oxyfuel furnace is both new to this industry and its use is increasing. As the industry has commented, air-gas furnaces are becoming increasingly difficult to permit, while an oxyfuel furnace has no
such restrictions due to its low PM and

NO X emissions profile.

We are not changing our assessment of the industry controls as having improved since 1999, and we are lowering the PM limit in the final rule from 0.5 to 0.33 pounds PM per ton of glass pulled. This limit codifies the current good practices and PM controls within the industry while not imposing additional costs to industry.

Regarding the commenter’s allegation
that chromium emissions were insignificant in 1999, and on that basis
the EPA should not set chromium limits for this industry, we do not agree. The EPA has the responsibility to regulate
air toxics under section 112 and to protect the health and environment surrounding these facilities as we are doing in this final rule. Moreover, due to source testing at the wool fiberglass industry, we have more information now than we had in 1999, and the industry’s technology (that is, both the furnaces and refractories used) has changed.

Regarding the statement that, since initial MACT implementation in 1999, industry has reduced chromium emissions without using any new control technologies, the industry did not provide data showing that
chromium emissions have been
reduced.

Comment: One commenter argued that chromium emissions from glass furnaces do not increase with age and that a relationship between furnace age
and chromium emissions is not statistically significant. The commenter argued that erosion of the refractories is
slow and there is no substantial increase
in chromium emissions over time. The
commenter noted that the EPA asserted that ‘‘when the glass-melting furnace is constructed using refractories containing high percentages of chromium, the emission levels of chromium compounds continuously
increase over the life of the furnace according to the increasingly exposed refractory surface area.’’ The commenter noted that the EPA further explains: ‘‘It is our understanding that because of the corrosive properties of the molten glass, fresh refractory is continuously exposed to the molten glass along the metal/glass contact line in the glass-melting furnace process. This increases the surface area of the refractory that is exposed to the molten glass. As a result, when the glass furnace is constructed using high chromium refractories, the emission levels of chromium compounds continuously increase over the life of the furnace.’’ The commenter stated that
this is not correct. The commenter explained that surface area of refractory exposed to molten glass does not substantially increase, nor do the
chromium emissions as a result. The commenter asserted that the slight
increase in surface area as between
uneven and smooth surfaces of new brick exposed to molten glass cannot explain the major difference that the one
source exhibited on chromium emissions. In fact, the commenter observed, the testing results provided by the industry included furnaces in all stages of their life. The commenter argued that given the nearly constant surface area as refractory erodes, and the homogeneous chrome content throughout the brick, there would be no
substantial increased chromium
emissions over time in the manner the EPA asserts. Furthermore, according to the commenter, the erosion process is very slow given the lifespan of these
furnaces.

The commenter stated that the EPA reports that ‘‘[o]ne industry spokesperson estimated that 20,000 pounds per year of refractory are worn away from the inside walls of one wool fiberglass furnace and ducted to the control device before venting to the atmosphere.’’ The commenter
contended that the context of that
statement is that furnace emissions are going through control devices that already meet the definition of BACT for particulate and if this were normal for the industry furnaces, they could not have the long lives that they typically
exhibit.

The commenter provided a detailed statistical analysis to demonstrate that a
furnace rebuild is not a viable control technology by using EPA’s data to show that a relationship between furnace age
and chromium emissions is not statistically significant. Using the EPA’s data, the commenter also pointed out specific examples of apparent
contradictions with the EPA’s conclusions, such as the data from one oxyfuel furnace showing lower
chromium emissions at the end of its life than at the beginning of its life, and showing no change in emissions after a
furnace rebuild. The commenter also points to data from another furnace demonstrating that emissions lessen with furnace age.

The commenter contended that the proposed chromium limit is based on unproven technology, and that experimental and theoretical technologies do not constitute ‘‘available’’ or ‘‘generally available’’ technology. The commenter provided the results of various analyses to


### 45301 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

11 EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 at www.regulations.gov. demonstrate that there is no proven technology that can meet the proposed limit. The technologies represented in the commenter’s analyses include high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, Venturi scrubber, 3-stage filter with water cleaning, membrane baghouse,
and caustic scrubber. The commenter described these technologies as ‘‘theoretical’’ and ‘‘unproven,’’ because they have never been installed at the outlet of a DESP serving a wool fiberglass manufacturing furnace. The
commenter contended that a membrane baghouse is used to control emissions from the industry, but has not been demonstrated to achieve the proposed
chromium limit. The commenter provided feedback from vendors of these technologies to demonstrate that pilot tests would need to be conducted prior to vendors committing to guaranteeing a specific performance level. The commenter also investigated the performance capacity of the sodium hydroxide scrubber and found that this technology is not transferable to a wool fiberglass manufacturing process.

Response: We disagree with the
commenters on the basis of direct statements, measurements and information on refractory content, production rates and furnace life received from industry sources. We
issued a CAA section 114 ICR to all five wool fiberglass manufacturing companies and visited four of the manufacturing facilities in December 2012 to improve our understanding of
the source of the chromium emissions from this industry. The results of these activities include source test data,
information on chromium content of
refractories used to construct different parts of all types of furnaces, and a deeper understanding of the properties of materials and technologies used to manufacture wool fiberglass. We were
able to confirm our earlier statements presenting our understanding of this industry. Specifically, we confirmed that the furnace refractory are eroded and corroded during the life of the
furnace both beneath the level of the glass, at the glass/metal contact line, and, in the case of gas-fired furnaces, above the level of the glass. We also
learned that electric furnaces do not have the same temperature profile as gas-fired furnaces and, therefore, typically do not emit chromium at the level of the gas-fired furnaces.

We also learned that oxyfuel furnaces are an important new technology both in terms of energy consumption and potential to emit SO 2 and NO X , but havethe greatest potential (followed by gasfired furnaces) to emit chromium. We have established that furnace age affects chromium emissions, as documented in
‘‘Memorandum Chromium Emissions and Furnace Age, August 14, 2014’’ and ‘‘Explanation of the Mechanisms of
Chromium Emissions from Gas-Fired Furnaces, June 3, 2015’’, which are available in the public docket for this rulemaking. 11 We also disagree with the commenter’s statistical analysis and argument that the EPA has not sufficiently established that there is a relationship between furnace age and
chromium emissions. We have based our conclusions on industry comments, furnace emissions testing, technical literature, and other available data.

In the letter dated March 12, 2012, the commenter stated that ‘‘Fiber glass furnaces necessarily use chrome-based refractory products (see Appendices A and B, spreadsheets showing typical chrome content),’’ and that ‘‘Virtuallyall of the above-glass refractory in gasoxy furnaces, unlike other furnace classes, is chrome-based refractory.’’

In that letter, the commenter continued, explaining that ‘‘Since the advent of chrome-based refractory,
insulation manufacturers have been able
to extend furnace life more than 50 percent. Without these refractories, wool fiberglass manufacturers would not likely be competitive in the global marketplace. Moreover, there currently is no available material that is as good as and has the structural integrity of chrome-based refractory to handle the higher temperature and more corrosive atmosphere inside gas-oxy furnaces.’’

Regarding the use of chromium refractories in oxyfuel furnaces, and the
continual increase in chromium emissions that result, the commenter added that oxyfuel furnaces have greater
chromium emissions than other furnaces because, based on industry experience, the combination of furnace design, glass composition, higher flame temperatures, higher water vapor concentration, and an oxidizing atmosphere with increased concentration of oxides (filterable and condensable PM) can cause more rapiddeterioration of the refractory in a gasoxy fiberglass insulation manufacturing furnace than in other types of glass
furnaces.

Regarding the comparison of operating temperatures of oxyfuel to other furnaces, the commenter added that, ‘‘One advantage of gas-oxy firing is the large reduction in NO X , due to the reduction of nitrogen from the air in combustion, and the reduction in the volume of flue gases. One disadvantage of gas-oxy firing is that the peak flame temperatures are up to 40 percent higher than gas-air furnaces. The gas-oxy
burner flame does not have to heat the added air components. In gas-oxy glass furnaces, peak flame temperatures approach 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas air-gas flame temperatures peak at about 3,560 degrees Fahrenheit, and cold-top electric melters are even lower due to having no heat input above the glass line.’’

Regarding the relationship of furnace temperature and glass chemistry to chromium emissions, the commenter explained that ‘‘with the reduction in the flue gas volume, the concentration of glass batch ingredient volatiles and water vapor in the atmosphere (and flue gas) is also much higher. The higher temperature of the gas-oxy burners can volatize the glass batch components more readily than in other furnaces. These glass volatiles that contain
alkaline earth oxides reduce the temperature that chrome can be vaporized to as low as 1,832 degrees
Fahrenheit. While the chrome must still reach temperatures of 2,700 to 2,900 degrees Fahrenheit to oxidize the
chromium from the trivalent to hexavalent state, the potentially
increased volatiles can contribute to higher chrome emissions. The 40 percent higher peak flame temperature of oxyfuel burners also raises the probability that available chrome (sic)
will encounter the conditions that will
convert it to the hexavalent state. Combined, these differences generate
conditions that are more corrosive to chrome refractory and can create
favorable conditions for conversion tohex chrome (CR206) inside a gasoxyfueled furnace. These severe
conditions do not exist in the other fiber glass furnace classes.’’

Regarding the commenters’ assertion that wool fiberglass furnaces could not be eroded by the molten fiberglass at the rate stated by industry, we note that the range of furnace life and rates of erosion did not originate from the EPA, but from information obtained from the industry itself. Further, we note that at the rate stated by industry and the control efficiency achieved by fabric filters, that refractory degrading at a rate of 20,000 pounds per year and fabric filters achieving 99-percent efficiency would emit 200 pounds PM annually from the contribution of the refractory alone. Using industry refractory content of 95- percent chromium, 190 of the 200 pounds of annual PM would be chromium compounds; 93 percent (177 pounds) of that chromium would be in the hexavalent state, which is within the range measured at oxyfuel and air-gas furnaces in this industry.


### 45302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Regarding the comment that there is no other technology available to meet the chromium limit, we note that all furnaces at existing area sources and all but two furnaces at existing major sources currently meet the final chromium limit. Regarding these two furnaces, the EPA has established that a furnace rebuild is an approach that existing facilities have used to reduce
their chromium emissions for furnaces over 6 years old, as discussed in section III.D of the preamble to the 2014 supplemental proposal. Further, the rule requires sources to meet the emission limits, but does not require the use of any specific control device or vendor. Sources may use whatever means they choose to meet the limits, such as morefrequent furnace rebuilds, using nonchromium or low chromium refractories in furnace rebuilds, enhanced baghouse operation, improved maintenance and alternative controls, and furnace design features, changes in raw material, or
scrubbers.

Comment: Two commenters asserted that the proposed chromium emissions limit would require technological
controls that are not cost effective. According to one commenter, the
installation of these controls would be economically damaging to the fiberglass insulation industry.

The commenters cited the agency’s estimated cost of $300 per pound of
hexavalent chromium removed if a scrubber is used to comply and the agency’s estimated cost of $12,000 per pound of chromium compoundsremoved if operations with highchromium refractory are rebricked with low-chromium refractory. According to the commenters, the conclusion that the proposed new chromium limit is
‘‘feasible and cost effective’’ is unreasonable and arbitrary. One
commenter observed that the EPA’s
cost-effectiveness values would be $600,000 per ton of chromium removed for scrubbers and $24 million per ton of chromium removed for rebricking, assuming either proposed compliance solution would actually be successful. As such, the commenters stated that the agency’s cost-effectiveness analysis does not support the conclusion that the new
chromium limit is authorized and justified under CAA section 112(d)(6).
One commenter claimed that the EPA’sconclusion is arbitrary because the costeffectiveness values are far in excess of
the cost-effectiveness values the EPA has found acceptable in prior CAA section 112 cost-effectiveness analyses and the EPA has not explained why such high cost-effectiveness values are justified, especially considering risk. According to the commenters, fiberglass insulation producers provide economic benefits by adding manufacturing jobs to the U.S. economy, shipment of finished product to markets throughout the country, and export of product to foreign markets. According to one commenter, one reason jobs are being sent overseas is the existing regulatory requirements and concerns about the future regulatory climate growing even more stringent. If revisions are not made to the proposal as recommended by the commenter, many of the companies will cease operation and it is likely that foreign competitors will flood the market with substandard product.

Response: We have reviewed the
available chromium test data and information provided in response to our 2011 proposal, 2013 supplemental proposal, and 2014 supplemental proposal (76 FR 72770, November 25, 2011; 78 FR 22370, April 15, 2013; and 79 FR 68011, November 13, 2014) and we have revised our technology review,
the chromium limit and our economic impact analysis for the final rule.

The EPA is finalizing a chromium limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. Based on emissions data submitted in 2010 and 2012 by all wool fiberglass manufacturers on every furnace type, the EPA determined that this is a limit reflected by well-designed furnaces in this source category.

As discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, all three of the furnaces that were tested in 2010, then rebuilt or repaired and retested in 2012, showed
lower chromium emissions as a result of the furnace rebuild or repair. Of these three furnaces, two emitted chromium below the previously proposed limit of 0.00006 pounds of chromium per ton of glass pulled after the rebuild or repair. One, a new furnace, tested at about 0.0002 pounds of chromium per ton of glass, and had been rebuilt at a cost of about $10 million. Consequently, we
revised our limit to reflect the level of chromium emissions that is achieved by a well-designed rebuilt furnace.

Thus, the final emission limit is a level that has been demonstrated by recently rebuilt furnaces. We note that a key aspect of our changing the final
chromium limit was to account for this new furnace, which measured chromium emissions at a level slightly higher than the limit we proposed.

In our November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68012 at 68021), we presented a chart showing chromium emissions by furnace age. That chart indicates 0.00025 pounds per ton represents the level below which rebuilt furnaces operate and many gas-fired furnaces operate below this level beyond their tenth year. We are aware of new developments in the field of
chromium refractories that reduce the spalling and degradation of the refractory face. We consider many of these to be design features which a wool fiberglass company would consider when planning to rebuild a furnace.
These data demonstrate that welldesigned furnaces (that is, furnaces designed and operated to minimize chromium emissions) can continue to meet the chromium limit as they age.

This final rule does not limit the materials with which a gas-fired furnace may be constructed. Specifically, we recognize from industry commenters that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces used by the wool fiberglass industry
will continue to use chromium refractories in their glass-melting furnaces. To help ensure that these sources are well-designed to minimize chromium emissions, wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces will be required to conduct chromium emissions performance testing annually.

Two facilities are projected to need to improve performance. For these two facilities, the total capital costs are $21.4
million and the total annualized compliance costs are estimated to be $944,000 for furnace rebuilds and compliance testing. For all other major source facilities subject to the chromium limit, the cost of compliance will include only the cost of emissions testing ($10,000 per furnace for a total of $80,000). Based on the EPA’s economic impact analysis, which shows that the impacts to wool fiberglass manufacturers should be low, we believe that the compliance costs of the
final rule are reasonable and will not be economically devastating to the wool fiberglass insulation industry.

Regarding the comment requestingthat the EPA compare the costeffectiveness of the proposed chromium limit ( i.e., 0.00006 lb/ton of glass) to the
cost effectiveness of standards finalizedunder other rulemakings, costeffectiveness values for hexavalent chromium are generally not comparable to values for other less toxic pollutants. We note, however, that the values now
estimated for hexavalent chromium are now well within the range that we have
considered cost effective for other highly toxic pollutants ( e.g., mercury and lead) in past actions. CAA section 112(d) neither specifies nor mandates a cost methodology. We note that in Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit found the EPA’s chosen methodology
‘‘reasonable’’ because the statute ‘‘did


### 45303 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

12 http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c

_ allchs.pdf. 13 http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c

_ allchs.pdf. 14 http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c

_ allchs.pdf. not mandate a specific method of cost analysis.’’

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s cost analysis for furnace rebuilds in support of the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68011, November 13, 2014) underestimated the cost effectiveness by using the wrong costing method, incorrectly applying the costing method used, using the wrong discount rate, and considering costs over only the short term. The commenter provided the document
‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) For the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries Economic Analysis Report,’’ January 2015, as the source of this critique of the EPA’s analysis.

The commenter argued that the Net Present Value (NPV) methodology is not an appropriate method for calculating cost effectiveness of the proposed
accelerated rebuild schedule if the EPA is evaluating the cost of a control as the single factor to consider, and also stated that they could not identify any EPA rules that have used this approach. The commenter suggested that a replacement cost analysis, as described in section
2.5.5.6 of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, 12 is more appropriate, and more commonly used by the EPA for this situation. The commenter provided cost-effectiveness results (dollars per pound of chromium emission reduction), as follows: Using a replacement cost methodology, the cost effectiveness was estimated by the commenter to be in the range of $366,161 to $527,334 at major source facilities and $67,808 to $97,654 at area sources; and using the NPV methodology, the cost effectiveness was estimated by the commenter to be in the range of $398,939 to $403,532 at major source facilities and $206,857 to $209,239 at area sources (each range represents the cost effectiveness calculated over 10 years versus 30 years).

The commenter further contended that the EPA erred in applying the NPV methodology in that the EPA excluded from its cost analysis the cost of losing the residual value (1 to 3 years) of a furnace’s life, which contradicts the EPA’s NPV methodology. The commenter explained that the EPA calculated what a $10 million investment losing 7 percent a year would lose in 7 years versus 10 years,
and then concluded that the difference
was the cost difference of the
investments. The commenter contended, however, that both calculations are incorrect in how the process of NPV is used for comparison: With a furnace re-bricking, the $10 million represents the investment that is consumed over the periods of comparison; and using the 10 years as a base case, the $10 million is consumed and has no residual value remaining at the end of the 10 year period. The commenter concluded that, therefore, the $10 million consumed with no residual value must be compared to a $10 million investment that retains a residual value at the end of 7 years, but yet must be replaced ( i.e., discounting
the residual value at the end of the 7 years to present value (‘‘PV’’) and adding that to the annual costs).

The commenter also objected to the EPA’s use of a 7-percent discount rate
because small variations in the discountrate can significantly bias the costbenefit analysis. The commenter alleged that the EPA chooses radically different discount rates for different regulations, generally providing no explanation for this variation, which appears arbitrary and capricious because it often chooses relatively high discount rates (between 7 and 10 percent) for regulations imposing future costs and low rates (around 3 percent) for regulations creating future benefits.

The commenter further argued that the EPA’s cost analysis failed to look at the longer-term cost of 7-year rebuilds, beyond 10 years into the future. The commenter provided the results of an analysis that presented the impact over 30 years, which show higher costs for both area and major sources.

Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA used the wrong costing method in the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA has reviewed the information provided by the commenter and, based on that information, which
discussed the estimation of costs for changes in equipment that may occur as a route to comply with NESHAPs, we agree that the EPA’s replacement costing approach described in section 2.5.5.6 of
the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual 13 is more appropriate for estimating the cost of furnace rebuilds than the NPV approach used for the 2014 supplemental proposal.

We received new information from the industry that they believed the replacement costing (RC) approach was
a better fit for the situation and approach than the NPV approach, which is what we had used at proposal.
The NPV evaluated the loss to the company from having to rebuild a furnace earlier, ( i.e., at 7 years into the furnace campaign instead of at 10 years.) The RC approach applies the equivalent uniform cost method as
defined in the control cost manual. This
is different because it calculates a uniform, or equal cost across the time of the investment, and the NPV is not calculated in the same way. While we
note that use of the NPV is not necessarily incorrect in this case, we agree that in other similar rules whereby this type of approach was introduced (that is, replacing a process unit before the end of its useful life, or campaign in this case), the replacement costing approach was applied instead of the NPV. Therefore, we agree with the commenter and have changed our cost
estimation method to be consistent.

We also revised the capital cost estimate for rebuilding a furnace to include the cost ($700,000) of transferring production to another facility while the furnace is being rebuilt, based on information provided by the commenter. Based on the revised cost-estimating procedure and capital cost ($10.7 million), we estimated the total annualized cost for rebuilding a furnace to be $462,000.

Regarding the comment that the EPA used the wrong discount rate, the EPA’s use of a 7-percent interest rate is in accordance with OMB guidance under
Circular A–4 and Circular A–94. This
interest rate has been used in the cost estimates for all rulemakings issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) since Circular A–94 was issued in 1992 and affirmed by
Circular A–4 in 2003. This includes the 2011 proposal for the mineral wool and wool fiberglass rules, and both supplemental proposals. In addition, the
EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual 14 , a key cost guidance document prepared by the EPA and widely used in the Agency as a basis for
cost estimation that has been available in its current edition since 2003, discusses the use of the 7-percent interest rate for rulemakings at length. The adherence by OAQPS to OMB guidance with regards to annualizing capital costs in its rulemaking has been consistent, and the information provided by the commenter on interest rates is not germane to the analysis for this rulemaking.

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s proposed chromium limit in the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68011, November 13, 2014) was not cost effective because the EPA’s cost analysis was missing the following costs
associated with furnace rebuilds: New materials (refractory bricks); recycling and disposal of old material; installation


### 45304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

labor; maintenance; loss of production;
and loss of labor force. The commenter
retained a consultant to conduct a cost analysis of a furnace rebuild, and the analysis is provided by the commenter. The analysis concluded that the total investment of a furnace refractory rebuild is estimated to be about $28 million, assuming the EPA’s furnace rebuild cost of $10 million. The $28 million includes approximately $7.9 million for all materials, $2 million for installation labor, $60,000 for brick recycling/disposal, $8 million for additional maintenance, $9 million for loss of production, and $384,000 for loss of labor force. The commenter explained that the loss of production cost is based on 200 tons per day throughput, $0.65 per pound of reproduction, and 35-day shutdown period. These costs are listed in Table 2 of Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–1042–0348. The commenter explained that the
additional maintenance cost includes maintenance of control equipment performed while the furnace is shut down during rebuild, as follows:

Maintaining safe and proper operation at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility requires that the facility maintain melted glass within the furnace at all times. In addition to the furnace operating continuously, all other equipment used in the manufacturing process, including air pollution control equipment operates continuously during normal operation. During a scheduled rebuild of the furnace refractory, a facility will use that downtime to perform routine maintenance on the entire manufacturing line. This maintenance requires longer downtimes to accomplish because it includes the support equipment for the furnaces as well as the major down line equipment such as forming sections, curing ovens, and line drives. This
maintenance is done at this time to avoid the other operational expenses and product supply issues incurred when taking extended downtimes. Therefore, when a facility plans a refractory rebuild, it must consider the additional costs and logistics associated with the routine repair and general maintenance of the entire manufacturing line. NAIMA [North
American Insulation Manufacturers Association] members estimate these additional costs to be in the range of $6,000,000 to $10,000,000, and include material (wear part replacements, pollution control device maintenance, electrical preventative maintenance, etc.) and labor to perform this maintenance. (Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–1042–0348).

Response: As noted in the information provided by the commenter (see Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042–0348), the EPA’s capital cost estimate of $10 million includes material costs, installation labor, and brick recycling/disposal costs. We also revised the capital cost estimate for rebuilding a furnace to include the cost ($700,000) of transferring production to another facility while the furnace is being rebuilt, based on information provided by the commenter. We disagree that the
cost of additional maintenance for control devices performed while the furnace is being rebuilt should be included in the total capital cost
estimate because these costs are not directly related to rebuilding the furnace ( i.e., the furnace could be rebuilt without performing maintenance on control equipment). We also disagree
with the commenter that the cost of lost labor force suggested by the comment
should be included because we believe that workers would be reassigned to other duties at the facility (including activities related to rebuilding the furnace) while the furnace is shut down.

Comment: One commenter indicated
that facilities will need to install control equipment to achieve the proposed
chromium standard and that the EPA has grossly underestimated the cost of this equipment for major sources. One commenter provided cost-effectiveness estimates (in dollars per pound of chromium emission reduction) developed by Trinity Consultants for various technologies: HEPA filter would be $18,500 to $24,100; Venturi scrubber would be $29,700 to $41,700; 3-stage filter after DESP would be $49,100 to $63,900.

Response: The EPA amended the proposed chromium limit for major sources to be 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. Based on
emission data submitted to the EPA in 2010 and 2012 by all major source wool fiberglass manufacturers for every furnace type, the EPA determined that all but two major source furnaces currently meet this chromium limit. For those two sources that will not initially meet the finalized chromium limit, the
EPA determined that a furnace rebuild may be conducted to achieve the limit with no additional control technologies ( e.g., scrubber).

Note that the finalized chromium limit applies to gas-fired furnaces and does not apply to electric furnaces. Electric furnaces at major sources will not be subject to the final chromium emission limits, so wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating electric furnaces will not incur any additional costs for compliance with the
finalized chromium limits.

Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA should subcategorize sources by furnace type because the
chromium emissions test data indicate significant differences among wool fiberglass furnaces and furnace type. The commenter further asserted that non-oxyfuel furnaces should not have a chromium limit, and that oxyfuel
furnaces should be further subcategorized to limit any applicable chromium emission limits to only those
furnaces that warrant such limits. A
second commenter asserted that the EPA should not subcategorize by furnace type.

One commenter suggested the following list of subcategories: Oxyfuel, specialty, steel shell, air-gas, cold-top
electric. The commenter characterized the EPA’s authority to subcategorize as broad and discretionary, noting that the CAA authorizes the EPA to ‘‘distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category’’ in establishing MACT standards, and that the EPA retains discretion in important respects in setting floors for MACT standards within the statutory framework in order to promulgate
MACT standards that best serve the public interest. The commenter continued, ‘‘Congress authorized EPA to subcategorize source categories based on classes, types and sizes of sources which will result in different [f]loors for different subcategories.’’ The
commenter observed that the EPA’s criteria for subcategorization include ‘‘air pollution control differences, process operation . . ., emissions characteristics, control device applicability and costs, safety, and opportunities for pollution prevention.’’
The commenter also noted that the EPA had incorrectly stated ‘‘[f]urnace construction and refractory composition were not factors that were presented by industry as having an effect on HAP emissions, and those factors were not used as a basis of representativeness for the resulting data set,’’ which contradicted the May 5, 2010 testing proposal letter sent to the EPA that categorized furnaces by construction and identified furnaces as having an
effect on emissions. The commenter stated that this identification by furnace type in the May 5, 2010 letter is precisely what the EPA should consider when subcategorizing.

The commenter asserted that no subcategories except oxyfuel furnaces should have a chromium limit, noting that non-oxyfuel furnaces (steel shell, cold-top electric, air-gas, and specialty) have extremely low to non-detectable
chromium emissions and referred to three supporting references: A summary
of the chromium content of refractories and chromium emissions (attachment 8 of comment letter), the test reports sent to the EPA as a basis for the comment, and a technology review of glass furnaces (attachment 10 of the comment


### 45305 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

15 Denis A. Brosnan, Ph.D., PE, ‘‘Technology Review, Chromium Emissions in Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces,’’ December 10, 2011. letter). 15 The commenter stated that the technology review (attachment 10) concluded that oxyfuel combustion has a much higher potential for generating
hexavalent chromium emissions as compared to air-gas or other types of furnaces based on the following conclusions: (1) Chromium emissions
result from volatilization from the
surface of chromium alumina refractories used at or above the glass line in the melting furnaces, and (2) the most significant variable with respect to quantity of chromium volatilized and to the presence of hexavalent chromium is the flame temperature. The commenter cited the study’s recommendations regarding subcategorization: ‘‘Because of the very significant flame temperature differences between oxyfuel and air-gas furnaces (5,035 degrees Fahrenheit versus 3,562 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively), there is engineering
rationale to differentiate or subcategorize the furnaces by combustion type from a standpoint of emissions . . . Other furnaces, such as cold-top melters and steel shell melters, should be in any lower emissions subcategory’’ (attachment 10, p. 10).

The commenter further asserted that the EPA should go a step further and subcategorize oxyfuel furnaces to regulate only those furnaces that pose a
concern. The commenter stated that the other oxyfuel furnaces other than the CertainTeed Kansas City, Kansas facility (a total of 12 furnaces) do not pose a concern because they show low
chromium emissions and do not approach a level of emissions that would trigger MACT applicability. The commenter recommended the following possible approaches for subcategorizing oxyfuel furnaces: (1) Establish a subcategory of the oxyfuel furnaces
based on variation in demonstrated chromium emissions; and (2) establish a subcategory of the oxyfuel furnaces
based on sources that can demonstrate a less than 1-in-1 million risk (using a
risk-based source threshold limit of 25 pounds per year).

Another commenter urged the EPA not to subcategorize the glass-melting furnaces used in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. The commenter supported the EPA’s recognition at proposal that it was inappropriate to subcategorize in the wool fiberglass source category, given
that there are no relevant differences that distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within the category. The commenter argued that use of different types of furnace bricks does not qualify as a basis for subcategorization because sources of the same class, type, and size use different bricks. According to the commenter, the EPA may not subcategorize the source category into high chromium-emitters
and low chromium-emitters because that would violate the purpose of protecting public health and thepurpose of ensuring that the bestperformers drive CAA section 112(d) standards to become stronger. The
commenter observed that bestperformers may have lower emissions, in part, because of the materials they use in their process or in their equipment. The commenter emphasized that the EPA may not lawfully subcategorize in a way that would place the best and worst performers into their own separate subcategories. The
commenter asserted that the EPA should
ensure that it sets standards for the entire source category that meet CAA section 112 requirements, rather than subcategorizing in a way that may allow a source to evade stronger emission requirements.

Response: In today’s final rule, we are promulgating a PM limit under CAA section 112(d)(6) that is applicable to all glass melting furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major source category. In our November 2011 proposal, we explained that in conducting our technology review, we found that most sources had reported
PM emissions that were less than 10 percent of the current limit with several sources achieving PM emissions that were two to three orders of magnitude
lower than the current MACT limit. We reasoned that new furnace designs and improvements in control devices operations, design, and bags since promulgation of the 1999 MACT were most likely responsible for reductions in PM emissions. As previously explained, the EPA may use surrogates to regulate
HAP if there is reasonable basis to do so. In several rulemakings, we have used PM as a surrogate ‘‘for HAP metals because PM control technology traps HAP metal particles and other particulates indiscriminately.’’ National

Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d at
639. We continue to believe that PM
controls would be effective for
chromium emissions commensurate
with the levels from both steel and electric furnaces used by wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

In today’s rule, we are also promulgating a chromium compounds limit under CAA section 112(d)(6) that will apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. As explained in the April 2013 supplemental proposal, electric furnaces emit metal HAP including chromium at generally lower emission levels than gas-fired furnaces. For example, becausethey operate at higher temperatures, gasfired furnaces are constructed with chromium refractories at various parts
of the furnace that are above the molten glass, including the crown.Temperatures above the melt in gasfired furnaces range from 2500 to 4500 degrees Fahrenheit, and these temperatures are sufficient to convert
chromium to its hexavalent state. When chromium is available, as it is in the refractories above the melt in gas-fired furnaces, it may be converted to thehexavalent state by the heat of the gasfired furnace. Thus, gas-fired furnaces have the potential to emit elevated levels of chromium, even when meeting the total PM limit (78 FR 22379–82; 78 FR 22386). These higher chromium
emissions do not occur with electric furnaces because they are constructed
with either non-chromium refractories (cold-top electric) or steel in place of refractories (electric steel shell) above the glass/metal line. As also explained in our 2013 supplemental proposal,
available test data from both electric and steel shell glass-melting furnaces consistently showed chromium
emissions below the detection level of the emissions measurement method (78 FR 22379–80). Furnace construction and
source test data also show that electricfurnaces are not constructed using highchromium refractories above the glassmetal line, do not reach the temperatures necessary to transform chromium to the hexavalent state, and do not emit significant amounts ofchromium compounds, as do the gasfired furnaces. In fact, all test data for
electric furnaces show that chromium
emissions were below the detection
limit or were at least one order of magnitude below the proposed limit.
Based on test data and statements from industry, we confirmed that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces are constructed using similar high-chromiumrefractories as one high emitting glassmelting furnace, that chromium emissions increase with furnace age as the refractories age, and that the type of furnace at the high emitter is an emerging new technology that is preferred across the industry where a source of industrial oxygen is economically available.

Additionally, as also explained in today’s final rule, we are finalizing a chromium compounds limit, under the ample margin of safety step of CAA section 112(f)(2), that will also apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. As explained above, gas-fired (oxyfuel and


### 45306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

16 Technology Review. Chromium Emissions from Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces. Brosnan, Denis A. Ph.D., PE. Clemson University, Clemson, SC February 1, 2012.

17 Chromium volatilization is only reported in the non-equilibrium melting of glasses at plasma processing temperatures, i.e., with flame temperatures typically reported as above 7,000 degrees Celsius (>12,000 degrees Fahrenheit).
Brosnan, 2012.

18 C. Nelson, Transition Metal Ions in Glasses: Nework Modifiers or Quasi-Molecular Complexes, Mat. Res. Bull. 18 (1983) 959–966. 19 W. David Kingery, H. Bowen, and D. Uhlmann,

Introduction to Ceramics (2nd Edition), Wiley (1976).

20 This report was attached to a comment to the November 25, 2011, Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing proposed RTR rule, and offers the author’s view on the technology review for wool fiberglass furnaces.

We conclude his use of the term ‘mineral wool’ in this context may have been either an error (the author advises on both industries) or an inclusion of wool fiberglass as a sub-classification under the overall classification (see NAICS codes) of mineral

wool. air-gas) furnaces have the greatest potential to emit chromium compounds because they have the internal temperature, the availability of oxygen, reactivity, and corrosivity of the furnace environment that are typical of wool fiberglass furnaces. In the 2013 supplemental proposal, we explained
that the elevated chromium emissions from gas-fired furnaces are of concern due to the toxic nature of the type of
chromium emitted—hexavalent
chromium—and the effects associated with its inhalation. For example,
hexavalent chromium is classified as a Class A known human carcinogen (78 FR 22374). In the November 2011 proposal, we also explained that an auxiliary risk characterization analysis, to assess the potential maximum
individual lifetime cancer risks in the event that all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities emitted at the level of the highest hexavalent chromium emitter, indicated that if
other facilities were to emit at that reasonable highest measured level,
emissions of hexavalent chromium could potentially pose unacceptable risks to public health due to inhalation exposures resulting from stack emissions of hexavalent chromium (76 FR 72801–80). We provided a detailed explanation on our decision to set both
PM and total chromium standards in the
memorandum titled ‘‘Technical Basis for Separate Chromium Emission Limits for Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces’’, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.

Comment: Two commenters predicted that the environmentally beneficial use of recycled mixed and green glass (cullet), and the businesses that provide it, will be adversely impacted by the
chromium limit. The commenters pointed out that in 2008–2011, member companies used more than 5.4 billion pounds of recycled glass, and that they are the largest user of mixed glass and the only large user of green glass. These
commenters surmise that some chromium may be emitted from cullet when it is remelted in the furnace, and that companies may reduce their use of green cullet to meet the chromium emission limits, an outcome that the
commenters see as undesirable. The commenters added that the highest
chromium emissions were measured
from the furnace that also fed the most green glass cullet as a fraction of total raw materials into the furnace during the test period. One commenter noted
that ‘‘not all chrome was retained in the glass (cullet),’’ and that green glass cullet ‘‘can be a primary contributor of
chrome emissions.’’ Response: As discussed in an
attachment to comments submitted on the EPA’s 2011 proposal, the wool fiberglass ‘‘recipe’’ uses alkali or alkaline earth oxides, or boron oxide (borax) for its properties to terminate chains and sheets of silicon and oxygen tetrahedral in the glass melt. 16 The result of this process is the formation of
macromolecules. These macromolecules are kinetically unable to crystallize at low temperature and, as a result, essentially polymerize the glass.

The comment attachment further explains that chromium enters the glass in wool fiberglass furnaces below the glass line, and goes into solution without having the potential for volatilization at glass-melting temperatures. 17 Chromium enters the silicate network structure of the glass as a ‘‘modifier’’ of the network, and cannot form glass on its own due to thermodynamic constraints. Chromium is held ‘‘rigidly’’ in the silicate structure in interstices in the atomic network, and is present in coordinated complexes with oxygen. 18

Further, based upon comments from industry, technical literature, refractory product specifications, and other data,
we conclude that the chromium is not
released from the cullet when it is melted, but from the chromium refractories due to several influencing factors: The glass chemistry, furnace temperatures, refractory wear rate and glass pull rate. For more information regarding this topic, see memo titled
‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces, June 2015’’ in the docket to
this rule.

However, we agree that the chemistry of the internal furnace environment may be influenced when green glass cullet comprises most or nearly all of the raw
material mixture used in the furnace. This may be due to reaction of submetallic oxides (boron) with the chromium oxide of the refractory. As described in the comment attachment,‘‘the basics of glass melting are wellknown, with fluxes acting on silicon
dioxide or SiO 2 to achieve a melted state that forms an amorphous ‘‘network’’ of atoms of oxygen and silicon with ‘‘fluxing’’ metals resulting in rigid solids at room temperature.’’ 19 The attachment concludes that, ‘‘Below the glass line in
mineral wool 20 (sic) furnaces, chromium from refractory corrosion
enters the network structure of the molten glass where it is held to the
extent that it is not volatile at the flame temperatures of batch temperature within these furnaces. Therefore,
volatilization from chromium refractories within mineral fiberglass furnaces originates at or above the glass line in the furnaces from the exposed refractory surfaces.’’

To summarize, according to the commenter, the minerals used to color these glasses is not re-emitted from the
cullet when it is melted at the temperatures of wool fiberglass furnaces. According to the commenter,
studies show that in order to volatilize chromium from glass, temperatures above 7,000 degrees Celsius (12,000 degrees Fahrenheit) (such as occurs at plasma processing temperatures) are required (Brosnan, 2012).

Therefore, we disagree with the
commenter’s assertion of the
mechanism of chromium emissions from the furnace, i.e., that chromium is volatilized from green glass cullet when it is remelted in the wool fiberglass
furnace.

To the contrary, we maintain that
chromium emissions are due to chromium refractory products in wool fiberglass furnaces. According to the literature and references, many of which were provided by the commenter,
chromium emissions increase from the wool fiberglass furnace as a result of degradation of chromium refractories, which is influenced by the
thermochemical interactions within the
furnace environment. The rate of degradation of the chromium refractory in the wool fiberglass furnace is influenced by the thermochemical interactions which are influenced by the raw material mixture processed in the furnace and the use of cullet (of any color).

We note that the test results upon
which the final limits are based include
tests conducted while the furnace was processing cullet in the raw material


### 45307 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

mixture. While the technology basis for the final standard is more frequent furnace rebuilds, wool fiberglass furnace operators may choose among a variety of options, as explained in section III.D of the 2014 preamble. Commenters previously identified several options to meet the final standard, including raw material substitution, i.e., reducing the amount of cullet processed in the
furnace. In addition to raw material substitution, industry commenters
included the furnace rebuild and installation of a control technology at the outlet of the DESP as potential
chromium reduction measures.

Regarding the prediction of the commenters that negative environmental impacts will result from the chromium limits because green glass will be landfilled instead of remelted by the wool fiberglass industry, we disagree for the following reasons. First, glass recycling in the past was accomplished through the color segregation of glass materials: Brown, or amber glass for amber containers; clear, or ‘‘flint’’ for flint containers; and green glass for green containers. Recycling centers no longer segregate their glass by color, but instead separate recyclable materials according to type: Paper, aluminum, steel, and glass, where glass of all colors is combined together in a single stream. Therefore, we disagree
with the commenter that vast amounts of green glass would be landfilled because glass recycling no longer segregates waste glass by color.

Second, we acknowledge that while mixed glass from single stream recycling may be difficult to sell as a raw material, recyclers now decolorize used glass for resale into all glass markets (container glass in particular). One recycler (GMG) in particular shared a description of their process: ‘‘GMG’s basic technology provides for the de-colorization and subsequent recolorization of mixed color cullet in the production of glass containers. In so doing, it allows the glass manufacturer to use multiple colored cullet (amber, green, flint) to produce a single color glass, matching rigorous color and transmissivity standards required for many glass products. It accomplishes this in a manner that allows the glass manufacturer to replace virgin raw materials with a former waste product (mixed cullet). GMG’s BatchFormulation System (BFS) is a userfriendly software program based upon a GMG proprietary series of algorithms representing the full spectrum of
furnace batch materials and their chemistry. The BFS technology, combined with the optical scanning equipment, enables the manufacturer to further increase savings through the use of start-of-the-art optical scanner/feeder
with advanced software that instantaneously reports color distribution weights and cullet chemistry in each batch sent to the furnace. Using these real time reports on the incoming cullet stream, the furnace operator can make formula modifications in chemicals and virgin
materials to ensure uniform colored glass production.’’

Third, the wool fiberglass industry is one of several glass industries, including mineral wool, container glass, pressed and blown glass, and flat glass, that purchase glass cullet as an inexpensive and energy efficient raw material. Therefore, we disagree that glass cullet would necessarily be landfilled instead of used in one of any number of glass industries.

Fourth, because chromium does not readily leach out of vitrified materials such as glasses, and would not further pollute the environment if disposed in a landfill, we believe that even if green glass cullet were landfilled in some areas, that would not result in a worse environmental impact than for chromium (particularly in its hexavalent form, as is most of the chromium from wool fiberglass) to be released into the air upon remelting.

Finally, according to the commenter, the use of cullet is required by Executive Order, and wool fiberglass companies avail themselves of cullet as a low-cost, energy efficient raw material
which is also used to increase wool fiberglass production rates due to the lower melting temperature and eutectic point (as compared to all raw minerals). Wool fiberglass manufacturers have stated that they would need to greatly
reduce or eliminate their use of cullet in the oxyfuel furnaces in order to meet the proposed chromium limit (0.00006 lb/ ton of glass pulled), but that it is a moot point at the final chromium limit (0.00025 lb/ton of glass pulled). During meetings held in December 2014 and March 2015, industry stated that reducing or eliminating the use of cullet in the oxyfuel furnaces as a way to meet
the chromium emission limit was no longer a concern to them. Furthermore, use of cullet in electric furnaces (which are not impacted by the chromium limit) does not seem to increaseemissions of chromium as it does in gasfired furnaces. Therefore, this is not an issue for electric furnaces, which will continue to use cullet. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter that cullet providers will be adversely affected by
these final rules.

For the reasons stated above, we disagree with the commenter that there are environmental impacts associated with glass recycling that should be included in the impacts analysis. However, changing the content and
mixture of raw materials used in a process can be a viable option for regulated sources to meet emissions
limits.

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review?

In our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), for PM we found that
while the use of ESPs is not new to this industry, the use of the DESPs in combination with gas-fired furnaces is more prevalent. We found that, in general, baghouses are no longer used for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We also found that all glass-melting furnaces were achieving emissions
reductions that were well below the existing MACT standards regardless of the control technology in use.

Therefore, we determined that
emissions controls on furnaces are capable of reducing PM to levels below those in the MACT standard, and, as previously proposed in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we are finalizing under CAA section 112(d)(6)the PM limit for new and existing glassmelting furnaces.

Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA provides that the agency must review and revise ‘‘as necessary’’ existing MACT standards taking into consideration developments in practices, processes and control technologies by affected sources. The ‘‘as necessary’’ language
must be read in the context of the provision, which focuses on the review of developments that have occurred in the industry since the time of the original promulgation of the MACT standard. Thus, our technology review was for all glass-melting furnaces located at both area and major sources, since all area sources were originally major sources. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the number of area sources is continually increasing as a result of the definition of ‘‘wool fiberglass facility’’ in 40 CFR 63, subpart NNN. For example in 2002, two out of 33 facilities were area sources, but by December 2012, 20 facilities were area sources (78 FR 22377). As also previously explained, there are nodifferences between gas-fired glassmelting furnaces used at major and area sources (78 FR 22377). Therefore, we believe it was appropriate to consider all furnaces in our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6).

Based on public comments and test data, we found that the DESP achieves an average of 97.5-percent efficiency in reducing PM, a fraction of which is


### 45308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

chromium compounds. Test data indicate that the majority of this chromium is in the hexavalent state,
which is the most toxic form of this pollutant. We concluded that, as earlier discussed, the mechanism of formation, the increasing rate of emission release (due to refractory degradation), and the pollutant toxicity warrant additional investigation. Our technology review indicates that options effective in reducing the chromium compound
emissions from the furnaces are available to wool fiberglass companies. We, therefore, conclude that it is appropriate for us to set standards for
the fraction of chromium in the total PM
that is still emitted from the DESP.

Based on comments we received on the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we again reviewed the cost and control options and found using
new cost information that the limit as proposed was not as cost effective as we initially believed. We reviewed the data to determine whether a higher limit than previously proposed would be
more cost effective while still significantly reducing chromium emissions from wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We found thatmost wool fiberglass gas-fired glassmelting furnaces and all recently rebuilt gas-fired furnaces currently emit chromium compounds at rates below 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. Two furnaces located at major sources, which together emit 583 pounds of chromium compounds per year after DESP control, would still have
to reduce chromium emissions to meet
the limit.

We compared the chromium emission
reductions that would have resulted under the previously proposed emission limit of 0.00006 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled to the reductions that
result from the final limit of 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. We found that the proposed
limit would have reduced chromium from major sources by 567 pounds per year, and that the final limit reduces chromium by 524 pounds per year. These are comparable and substantial
reductions in chromium due to two high-emitting furnaces at major sources. Moreover, the final limit sets a backstopso that another high-chromiumemitting, gas-fired glass-melting furnace cannot be operated again at a major source in this industry.

We revised our technology review to
reflect our conclusions on the most costeffective ways to meet the final
chromium limit. We find that two approaches are likely to be used by industry to reduce chromium emissions from gas-fired furnaces. One approach is to rebuild the furnace early (instead of a furnace life of 10 or more years, rebuild the furnace after 7 years of service) at an annualized cost of $462,000 per year, and the other approach is to replace one raw material (cullet) with another material (raw minerals), which the industry stated

would result in lower chromium emissions, at an average cost of about $620,000 per year. Industry test data show that major sources will reduce chromium emission by 524 pounds per year to meet the 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled limit.

The cost effectiveness of both approaches is reasonable, and the option to rebuild the furnace has a cost effectiveness of approximately $880 per pound of chromium, which appears formost companies to be the most costeffective option. This cost is extremely affordably compared to costs for

chromium control in other rules. For example, in the Chromium Electroplating RTR (77 FR 58226, September 19, 2012), we accepted a cost effectiveness of $11,000 per pound of

hexavalent chromium reduced. We also note that section 112(d) neither specifies nor mandates a cost methodology. We

note that in Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 D.C. Cir. 2001), the DC

Circuit Court found the EPA’s chosen methodology ‘‘reasonable’’ because the statute ‘‘did not mandate a specific method of cost analysis.’’

Sources may choose a combination of these approaches to meet the final

chromium limit: Raw material substitution may be used as the furnace begins to show refractory wear (and

associated increase in chromium emissions), and then, toward the end of the useful life of the furnace, sources may choose to rebuild their process equipment. We discuss the technology

review in more detail in the November 2011 (76 FR 72803–72804) and the April 2013 (78 FR 22379–382) proposals; in the ‘‘Technology Review Memorandum for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP’’; and in the paper titled,

‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces,’’ June 2015; which are

available in the docket to this rule. C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

In the November 2011 proposal, we proposed to establish emissions limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from FA and RS manufacturing lines that were previously regulated under a surrogate, and previously unregulated HCl and HF from glass-melting furnaces. In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we retained the proposed emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for FA and RS manufacturing lines; however, we proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for control of HF and HCl emissions from furnaces,
instead of the numeric emission limits in the November 2011 proposal (see section V.D of this preamble). In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed revised emissions limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol
from RS and FA lines for new sources as a result of our updated approach to
evaluate limited datasets. The emission limits for existing RS and FA lines in the November 2014 supplemental proposal remained the same as in the April 2013 supplemental proposal
because the size of these datasets was sufficiently large that the limits were not changed by the updated approach.

For the sake of simplicity, we discuss these pollutants together in the following sections.

2. How did the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

We have not changed any aspect of the emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for existing and new FA manufacturing lines since the November 2014 supplemental proposal. However, as explained in section V.H of this preamble, we are deferring
evaluation of emissions limits for RS lines pending collection of new process and emissions data from the industry.

3. What key comments did we receive on the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits, and what are our responses?

We received comments in support of and against our proposed formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines. The following is a summary of the key comments received


### 45309 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

regarding the revised formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and our responses to these comments.
Additional comments on the standards and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response
document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042).

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA is changing the applicability of the MACT standard for products made on FA manufacturing lines, as the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22370, April 15, 2013) indicated that the limits apply to all products manufactured on an FA line, not only to pipe and heavy density products. The commenter interpreted this to expand applicability of MACT to lines not previously regulated, which is beyond the EPA’s authority under
section 112 of the CAA. In the commenter’s opinion, the limits for FA lines should continue to apply only to pipe and heavy density products, and not to any other product made on an FA
line.

Response: The EPA changed the applicability of the MACT standard for products made on FA manufacturing lines for two reasons. First, the EPA determined under this rulemaking that
the EPA established the 1999 MACT floor as no control ( i.e., no limit was established) for formaldehyde emissions from FA lines producing light density products (new and existing), automotive products (new and existing), and heavy density products (existing). As stated in the March 31, 1997, proposal for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (61 FR 15230), we divided FA lines into four subcategories: light density, automotive, heavy density, and pipe products. In that proposal (61 FR 15239), we noted that we did not establish emission limits for existing FAmanufacturing lines producing lightdensity, automotive or heavy-density products or emission limits for new FAmanufacturing lines producing lightdensity or automotive products because
the MACT floor was no control and
because the cost effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor was
not reasonable. The DC Circuit Court explicitly rejected this approach— establishing the MACT floor as no
control—in both National Lime

Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633–
34 and in Portland Cement Association

v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Therefore, the EPA has both the authority and the obligation to change applicability for FA lines to ensure that all sources of HAP are regulated. Furthermore, we believe that the data for these facilities clearly support the
establishment of MACT floors that
assure emissions controls. The
standards are based on data we received
on tested FA lines. The commenter did not provide additional test data or information on ‘‘any other product
made on an FA line’’ that would lead us to change to the emission limits previously proposed for FA lines.

Second, in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, in response to
comments on our November 2011 proposal, and consistent with our intent in the 2011 proposal, we stated that we were eliminating the subcategories for
FA bonded lines because we believe that the technical or design differences that distinguished these subcategories in 1999 no longer exist (78 FR 22387). We stated in the 2013 preamble that, as part of rule development, industry provided test data that they claimed were representative of products manufactured on FA lines (refer to industry’s May 10, 2010, letter to the EPA, available in the docket). The 2011 and 2012 ICR response data indicate that only one company uses FA processes to manufacture wool fiberglass products. This is the company that provided the
test data on which the limits for FA lines are based. In comments, companies asked that the limits for FA lines apply only to pipe and heavy density, and not to ‘‘any other product made on an FA line.’’ However, no other companies provided additional data that could serve as a basis for a change to the proposed limits for FA lines for any other products being produced on FA lines. The data provided by industry, therefore, indicate that this one company is the only company engaged in manufacturing wool fiberglass products on an FA line. Because test data exist for multiple products from this one company reporting these activities, we disagree with the
commenter that the limits for FA lines should continue to apply only to pipe and heavy density products, and we are finalizing limits developed for FA lines that are representative of all product types made on FA lines. Consistent with our 2013 supplemental proposal, we are establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control for phenol, formaldehyde and methanol emissions
from FA bonded lines.

In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the EPA had erred in establishing
emissions standards for sources of HAP
in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, 67 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003), and consequently vacated the rules. ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. March 13, 2007)). Among other things, the Court found the EPA erred by failing to regulate processes that emitted HAP. As required by CAA section 112, we must
establish emission limits for all processes that emit HAP based on the
information available to us. The data
available to the EPA indicate that FA lines producing products other than pipe and heavy density products do emit HAP. Therefore, the EPA is obligated to set limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for any such FA
lines.

Comment: One commenter expressed concerns regarding the EPA’s proposed limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Regarding the 2011 proposal,
the commenter asked the EPA to consider the example of one company whose compliance test data indicate that after switching to a non-phenol/ formaldehyde binder, the level of formaldehyde and methanol for its RS line would exceed the 2011 proposed standard of 0.02 pounds per ton for formaldehyde for RS lines and the proposed standard for methanol of 0.00067 pounds per ton for new and reconstructed RS lines. According to the commenter, the data also suggested that an RS line at an existing source using non-phenol/formaldehyde binders would not meet the 2011 proposed formaldehyde standard of 0.17 pounds per ton for RS lines. The commenter also contended that the phenol limit of 0.0011 pounds per ton in the 2011 proposal for RS lines is so low that it
cannot be measured with normal test times or with the proposed method if the process is performing close to the
limit. The commenter concluded that the sources that switch to non-phenol/ formaldehyde binders would not be able to comply with the proposed standards without installing controls such as a thermal oxidizer, which suggested the proposed standards are inappropriate. The commenter objected to the EPA’s calculating the MACT floor using data for RS lines using non-phenol/ formaldehyde binders. The commenter asserted that non-phenol/formaldehyde binder lines are not representative of
emissions in the affected units within the industry, and non-phenol/ formaldehyde binder lines should not
be used to set the MACT floor for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The commenter requested that the EPA
confirm that all test data used to set new and revised limits are based only on data from sources running a bonded product, and to confirm that none of the
test data used to set the new and revised
limits are based on data from sources


### 45310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

running a non-phenol/formaldehyde binder or unbonded product.

Regarding the 2013 supplemental proposal, the commenter maintained that formaldehyde and methanol
standards are not feasible for certain RSlines without installing both nonphenol/formaldehyde binder and
additional controls such as thermal oxidizers, because of the formaldehyde created through combustion of natural gas. The commenter specifically mentioned the formaldehyde standard of 0.19 pounds per ton for RS lines asbeing borderline achievable for nonphenol/formaldehyde binders in RS lines for existing sources.

Regarding the 2014 supplemental proposal, the commenter indicated that the level of formaldehyde and methanol emitted by RS lines would exceed the 2014 proposed standard of 0.087 pounds per ton for formaldehyde and the 2014 proposed standard for methanol of 0.61 pounds per ton for
new and reconstructed sources because of the formaldehyde created through combustion of natural gas. The
commenter added that the data also suggest that the formaldehyde standard of 0.19 pounds per ton is borderline passing for non-phenol/formaldehyde binder on some existing sources. The commenter explained that formaldehyde is a by-product of natural gas combustion from burners used in the process. The commenter indicated that the proposed phenol limit of 0.26 pounds per ton is greatly improved since the 2011 proposed limit, but that it is still not consistently achievable.
The commenter concluded that the proposed standards may not be able tobe achieved even after switching to nonphenol/formaldehyde binders without installing controls such as a thermal oxidizer, which themselves will emit additional formaldehyde as a result of the combustion of natural gas to operate
the control device.

Response: We agree with the
commenter that the data used to calculate MACT for major sources must
not include data for RS lines that run a non-phenol/formaldehyde binder or unbonded product. As discussed in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22387), in response to the comment on the 2011 proposed emission limits for RS lines, we recalculated the emission limits after removing the emission test data for RS lines using non-phenol/formaldehyde binders, and we reproposed emission limits for RS lines. However, based on this comment, we determined that our proposed formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol limits for RS lines may not accurately represent the average performance of the best performing sources. In 2015, after considering further information provided by industry representatives, we determined that the limits proposed in 2014 for RS lines likely included RS lines using non-phenol/formaldehyde
binders and that the EPA could not determine (based on the 2011 ICR data) which data represented manufacturing lines that were using phenol/ formaldehyde binders, and which data represented manufacturing lines that were not using the phenol/ formaldehyde binder. As a result, we are not establishing in this final action RTR standards for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for RS manufacturing lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities. We have issued an ICR under
section 114 of the CAA to collect updated emissions and process information from the industry, and we will analyze the ICR data and evaluate limits for RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities at a future date.

Comment: One commenter argued
that the EPA should not recalculate the MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions
and that the current MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions is still valid.
The commenter contended that the EPA
should not set a MACT floor for formaldehyde for the second time, explaining that (1) the EPA has not provided an explanation or asserted any rational basis for choosing to calculate
a new MACT floor and standard for formaldehyde, as opposed to using its discretion under CAA section 112(d)(6) to make an appropriate adjustment without recalculating the floor and standard; and (2) there is no basis under the technology review to recalculate a
MACT floor.

The commenter stated that nothing in CAA section 112(d) suggests that the EPA is required to establish a floor under CAA section 112(d)(3) more than once in issuing or revising MACT standards under CAA section 112(d). The commenter pointed out that this proposal is not consistent with other RTRs, for which the EPA has taken the position that Congress did not intend
EPA to establish MACT floors for a
second time when it revised a standard. The commenter provided the example of the Coke Oven RTR rulemaking, in
which the EPA stated its rationale for CAA section 112(d)(6) not requiring
additional floor determinations because this would ‘‘effectively convert existing
source standards into new source
standards . . . The EPA sees no indication that section 112(d)(6) was intended to have this type of inexorable downward ratcheting effect.’’ The commenter further pointed out litigation challenging the Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR rule, in which the DC Circuit Court upheld the position that
there should not be an inexorable downward ratcheting effect for the MACT floors ( NRDC v. EPA , 529 F.3d 1077, 1083–84 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). The commenter urged the EPA to consider the statutorily-prescribed factors in recalculating the MACT floor.

The commenter stated that the EPA is conducting a MACT on MACT analysis by recalculating the MACT floor, citing

NRDC v. EPA , 529 F.3d 1077, 1083–84 (D.C. Cir. 2008), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the position that there should not be an inexorable downward ratcheting effect
for the MACT floors. The commenter agreed that the EPA should calculate the floor for phenol and methanol, since standards for these HAP were missing
from the NESHAP.

The commenter urged the EPA to retain the 1999 formaldehyde limit, saying that the 1999 limit is still the MACT floor and lowering the limit would be ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ and would need to be justified accordingly. The commenter noted that in the proposal for the 1999 MACT rule, the EPA found that the floor for FA lines making both heavy density and pipe products was no
control. The commenter observed that
the EPA had also considered controls beyond-the-floor at the time, but
concluded that the cost effectiveness was unreasonable. According to the commenter, nothing has changed since this proposal for FA lines. The
commenter noted that because no new HAP controls have been added, the floor is still no control for these products.

Response: The EPA does not agree that CAA section 112(d)(6) provides the exclusive authority to address MACT
standards when a MACT determination has already been issued for the source category. The D.C. Circuit Court has held that the EPA may permissibly amend improper MACT determinations, including amendments to improperly promulgated floor determinations, using its authority under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA , 645 F. 3d 420, 425–27 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The absence of standards for these HAP is not proper. National Lime

Association v. EPA , 233 F. 3d at 633– 34; see also Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA , 645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based on post-compliance data, is permissible when originally-established floor was improperly established, and permissibility of EPA’s action does not turn on whether the prior standard was remanded or vacated). Similarly, the D.C. Circuit Court’s December 9, 2011


### 45311 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

decision in Portland Cement

Association v. EPA , 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011) confirms that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not constrain the EPA and it may reassess its standards more often, including revising existing floors if need be. The commenter is, thus, incorrect in arguing that CAA section 112(d)(6) provides the exclusive authority to address MACT standards
when a MACT determination has already been issued for the source category. Further, CAA section 112(d)(6) itself provides that the agency must review and revise ‘‘as necessary.’’ The ‘‘as necessary’’ language must be read in the context of CAA section 112(d)(6),
which focuses on the review of developments that have occurred since the time of the original promulgation of the MACT standard and, thus, can be used as an opportunity to correct flaws that existed at the time of the original promulgation.

The EPA is amending the 1999 formaldehyde MACT floor for FA lines because the floor was improperly determined. First, the EPA determined under this rulemaking that the MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions for new FA lines making heavy density products and for new and existing FA lines making pipe products were set at the highest measured value for each of the subcategories. As such, the 1999 MACT floor for formaldehyde was improperly set at a level achievable by all sources within the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and not at a level defined by the CAA. Again, as explained in the November 2011 proposal, when the EPA had in the past (incorrectly) interpreted CAA section 112(d) as requiring standards that can be achieved by all sources, the D.C. Circuit Court has rejected that interpretation. ‘‘EPA may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)’s requirement that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve by claiming that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d at 861. ‘‘EPA may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)’s requirement that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve by claiming that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d at 861 (‘‘EPA

cannot circumvent Cement Kiln’s holding that section 7412(d)(3) requires
floors based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with the lowest emission levels), not the emission level achievable by all sources, simply by redefining ‘‘best performing’’ to mean those sources with emission levels achievable by all

sources.’’ Sierra Club v. EPA , 479 F. 3d at 881. (Emphasis in original). In revising the MACT floor for formaldehyde, the EPA is ensuring that
the floor reflects the method established in CAA section 112(d) for establishing the MACT floor for major sources of HAP: (1) For existing sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which
the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources, as is the case here; and (2) for new sources, the MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)).

Second, the EPA determined under this rulemaking that the EPA
established the MACT floor for the formaldehyde limits for FA lines producing light density products (new and existing), automotive products (new and existing), and heavy density products (existing) as no control ( i.e. , no limit was established). Therefore, these
sources of HAP emissions are unregulated under the NESHAP, which is an approach soundly rejected by the
D.C. Circuit Court in both National Lime

Association v. EPA , 233 F. 3d at 633–
34 and in Portland Cement Association

v. EPA , 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The EPA disagrees with the
commenter that the EPA should retain
the current MACT floor of ‘‘no control’’ and that the EPA’s recalculating the floor represents a level ‘‘beyond the floor.’’ Put another way, since the EPA did not adopt a proper MACT standard initially, it is not amending a MACT standard but adopting one for the first time. Consequently, the EPA is not barred from making MACT floor determinations and issuing MACT standards for formaldehyde pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).

Third, the EPA is removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol emissions, as supported by the commenter. The EPA may
attribute characteristics of a subclass of
substances to an entire class of substances if doing so is scientifically
reasonable. Dithiocarbamate Task Force

v. EPA , 98 F.3d 1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996). We no longer believe that there is a correlation and, therefore, reasonable bases, between formaldehyde and phenol and methanol. Further
discussion of the EPA’s rationale for removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol emissions is provided in the preamble to the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72788, 72791, and 72796) for.

Regarding the comment that this proposal is not consistent with other RTRs, we note that in several recent rulemakings we have chosen to fix underlying defects in existing MACT standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), provisions that directly govern the initial promulgation of MACT standards (see National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 2009, 74 FR 55670; and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 FR 22566). Regarding the comment that the EPA had not provided an explanation or asserted any rational basis for choosing to calculate a new
MACT floor and standard for formaldehyde, in our 2011 proposal, we explained that the D.C. Circuit Court had found that we erred in establishing
emissions standards for sources of HAP
in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, and, consequently, vacated the rule. Sierra
Club v. EPA , 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007). These errors included incorrectly calculating MACT emissions limit,
failure to set emission limits and failure to regulated processes that emitted HAP. We explained that we were taking
action to correct similar errors in the 1999 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP. We identified certain HAP
that we failed to establish standards for in these rules. We also explained that
we had not established standards for phenol and methanol because they were represented by a surrogate ( i.e.

, formaldehyde).

With regard to formaldehyde emissions from the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, we explained we were proposing MACT limits for existing, new, and reconstructed RS and FA manufacturing lines and presented these limits in Tables 4–6 of the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72791). We also explained that we had a ‘‘clear obligation to set emissions
standards for each listed HAP.’’
National Lime Association v. EPA , 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits?

As explained elsewhere in this preamble, we are eliminating the subcategories for FA bonded lines
because we believe that the technical or


### 45312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

21 We divided the FA lines into four subcategories: 1. Light density, 2. automotive, 3. heavy density and 4. pipe products, but set standards for only two subcategories—heavy density (new) and pipe product (new and existing). We explained that ‘‘[b]ecause no controls are currently used, the MACT floor is no control and
because the cost effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor is not reasonable, the Agency is not setting emission limits for existing FA manufacturing lines producing light-density, automotive or heavy-density products or new FA manufacturing lines producing light-density or automotive products.’’ 61 FR 15239 (March 31, 1997). design differences that distinguished these subcategories when the original rule was developed no longer exist (CAA section 112(d)(1)). We are also establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from
FA bonded lines.

The data available to us at proposal
were emissions test data from various products within the heavy density products subcategory only, and industry
indicated that the test data for this subcategory were representative of all products manufactured on FA bonded lines. Since our various proposals, no
additional source test data have been provided to support continued subcategorization of FA lines. We, therefore, concluded in the various proposals that the limits developed for FA lines were representative of all products made on FA lines and that further subcategorization was no longer supportable.

As also explained in our November 25, 2011 proposal, we examined the
1999 MACT rule and found that it does
not include emissions standards for certain products manufactured on FA
lines which do not fall into the regulated subcategories ‘‘pipe’’ and ‘‘heavy density.’’ 21 The EPA has a ‘‘clear statutory obligation to set
emission standards for each listed HAP. Although Sierra Club v. EPA permits the Agency to look at technological controls to set emissions standards, it does not say that the EPA may avoid setting
standards for HAP not controlled with technology.’’ National Lime Association

v. EPA , 233 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). In our review, we found that the foundation supporting the 1999 MACT standard for formaldehyde was developed incorrectly. Instead of being based upon the emission limit achieved by the average of the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, it was set at a level that was achievable by all existing sources. As explained in our November 25, 2011 proposal, this approach has been consistently rejected by the D.C. Circuit. ‘‘EPA may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)’s requirement that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve by claiming that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA

, 255 F.3d at 861.

For the reasons provided above, as proposed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are eliminating the subcategories for FA lines and finalizing emissions limits at
the MACT level of control for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble.

D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and
HF Emissions From Furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for wool fiberglass manufacturing (major sources)?

In our November 2011 proposal, we proposed emission limits for HF and HCl from glass-melting furnaces. In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we proposed work practice standards in lieu of numeric emission limits, under CAA section 112(h), in response to
comments and our evaluation of test data from industry regarding our November 2011 proposed limits. We explained that in response to comments on the November 2011 proposed limits,
we re-evaluated test data that we used
to calculate the MACT floor for the proposed HCl and HF standards and
found that most of the test data reflected
values below the detection limit of the test method. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were values indicating that either HCl or HF, or both pollutants, in the exhaust gas stream
were below the detection limit of the test methods. We, therefore, proposed work practice standards for the control
of HCl and HF emissions from furnaces. However, in the 2013 supplemental proposal we did not specifically identify the work practice standards. In our November 2014 supplemental proposal,
we noted that the source of HF and HCl
in furnace emissions was cullet made from glass used in products such as cathode ray tubes (CRTs), microwave ovens, televisions, computer screens, and other electronics. Therefore, we proposed work practice standards that would require owners and operators of wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces to
ensure that the cullet did not contain glass from these types of sources either by conducting their own internal inspection and recordkeeping program, or by receiving certification from their cullet suppliers. 2. How did the work practice standards change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category since proposal?

In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we explained the proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl in the preamble, but received comment that because the rule language did not accurately reflect the preamble language, that it left to interpretation the
other sources of fluoride in the cullet (such as municipal water supply used to wash cullet). We did not intend that interpretation, which would be beyond the purposes of the NESHAP. In this final rule, we are correcting that deficiency in the November 2014 supplemental proposal, withdrawing that previously proposed rule language and specifying in the rule text at 40 CFR 63.1382(a)(1)(iii) the correct requirements, as previously proposed
and as indicated above.

3. What key comments did we receive on the work practice standards, and what are our responses?

We received comments in support of and against our work practice standards
for HCl and HF emissions from furnaces at wool fiberglass facilities. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the work practice standards and our responses to
these comments. Additional comments on the work practice standards and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042).

Comment: One commenter objected to the EPA establishing work practice
standards for HCl and HF instead of
numerical emission limits without first establishing that ‘‘measuring emission levels is technologically or economically impracticable’’ ( Sierra
Club v. EPA , 479 F.3d at 883–84) or that setting work practice standards ‘‘is consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f).’’ 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(1). The commenter understands that 80 percent of emission tests were below the detection limit, but contends
that this fact demonstrates that measuring emissions is difficult, not technologically impracticable. The commenter argues that the EPA must explain why it cannot use the 20 percent of the tests above that limit, taking the detection level into account, to set appropriate emission limits.

Another commenter requested that
the EPA remove all of these sources
from the calculation for the MACT floor
because data that are below the minimum detection limit (MDL) of the


### 45313 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

22 RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. Memorandum, Comments on Proposed EGU MACT Rule, July 19, 2011, p. 18. test method (BDL) are unquantifiable and that using BDL data are likely to set limits so stringent that the best performing sources cannot even meet
those limits. The commenter observed that the data for every source in the MACT floor ranking is BDL; and the majority of HCl data points are BDL.
The commenter contended that facilities will have difficulty showing compliance
with an emission limit that is based on data from testing that was BDL. The
commenter cited a memorandum from RMB Consulting about relying on BDL
data. 22

According to the commenter, the EPA should only use values that are above the MDL ( i.e. , actual values) in calculating the MACT floor, and that the emissions floor must be determined by quantifiable data. According to the commenter, in the Boiler MACT, the EPA reassessed the proposed emission
limits for dioxins/furans. The commenter noted that, as explained by the EPA, a large amount of the emission
measurement used to set the dioxin/
furan limits were below the level that could be accurately measured.

Alternatively, the commenter stated that the EPA could propose a work practice standard in order for facilities to show compliance. Under the Boiler MACT, the commenter noted that the EPA chose to regulate dioxins/furans by using a work practice standard. In that case, the commenter stated that 55 percent of facilities tested had dioxin/
furan emissions below the MDL for EPA
Method 23. The commenter stated that a work practice standard would allow
facilities to decrease HCl and HF
emissions and be able to show compliance.

In addition, the commenter stated that
the EPA has made no effort to take into
account reductions achieved as a result of the original MACT implementation as part of establishing the MACT floor. If a MACT floor is calculated, the
commenter contended that it must
consider what the emissions would
have been at the time of the initial MACT promulgation in establishing the
floor.

Response: The EPA did not set any standard for HCl and HF in the original 1999 MACT rule and is rectifying that deficiency (see National Lime

Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 634) here by establishing standards pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Sections 112(h)(1) and (2)(B) of the CAA indicate that the EPA may adopt a work practice standard rather than a numeric standard when ‘‘the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations.’’ We evaluated test data that we originally used to
calculate the MACT floor limits for HCl and HF in response to comments such as this one. Industry conducted testing in an attempt to obtain data for the acid gases HF and HCl, under the terms of the voluntary survey. Emissions tests
were conducted over three 1-hour test runs, which is, for similar industries, sufficient time to detect these acid gases when they are emitted. However, we
found that most of the test data reflected values that were BDL. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were values BDL for both HF and HCl, indicating that neither HF nor HCl are present in measurable amounts in the exhaust gas
stream for these sources.

Because of the high percentage on non-detect test runs, we proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl in our April 2013 supplemental proposal. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the EPA regards situations where, as here, the majority of measurements are BDL as being a
situation where measurement is not ‘‘technologically practicable’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h). The
EPA also believes that unreliable
measurements raise issues of practicability, feasibility and enforceability. The application of measurement methodology in this situation would also not be ‘‘practicable
due to . . . economic limitation’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h)
because it would result in cost expended to produce analytically suspect measurements (78 FR 22387).

As discussed in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22387, April 15, 2013), under these circumstances, the EPA does not believe that it is technologically and economically practicable to measure
HCl and HF emissions from this source category. ‘‘[A]pplication of measurement methodologies’’ (CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)) means more than taking a measurement. It must also
mean that a measurement has some
reasonable relation to what the source is emitting ( i.e., that the measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not
the case here and the EPA does not
believe it reasonable to establish
numeric emission limits for HCl and HF in this rule. Therefore, in the final rule, we are promulgating work practice standards consistent with our April 2013 supplemental proposal.

However, we disagree with the comment that in revising or promulgating MACT standards, the EPA may not use current test data showing that sources may have achieved much
lower emissions levels as a result of complying with earlier standards. ‘‘EPA acted lawfully, in resetting the MACT floors based on post-compliance
emissions data.’’ Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 426–27 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In addition to the work practice standards in the final rule, control of
HCl and HF can also occur as a
‘‘cobenefit’’ of conventional control technologies that have been installed for other purposes. These acid gases may be
absorbed and neutralized when a scrubber is present. We, thus, believe that the work practice standards will
result in the level of control of the exceedingly small amounts of HCl and HF present in wool fiberglass furnace emissions achieved by the best performing facilities in the source category.

When testing for indications that a pollutant is emitted by a source, if the
results are below the detection limits of the method, that means that the pollutant was not, in fact, detected. We
do not set emission limits for all 188 HAP on the list in CAA section 112(b), but only for those that are emitted from the processes. We required sources to test for HF and HCl, and most (over 80 percent) of sources did not detect either
of those HAP in their emissions streams.
When this is the case for over half the sources in the category, we believe it is not appropriate to set numerical limits for such pollutants.

Comment: One commenter stated that glass cullet cannot be guaranteed by providers or facilities to be ‘‘free of chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing constituents,’’ as we proposed because (1) cullet must be cleaned before use and city supplied water contains chloride and fluoride; (2) non-glass materials in cullet (including coatings on the glass) contain fluorides or chlorides; (3) recycled cullet currently used by the industry may contain trace amounts of chlorides and fluorides; and (4) to meet product performance requirements, certain glass formulations require glass fibers to contain small
levels of fluoride. The commenter argued that the proposed requirement goes beyond what the industry is currently doing to achieve HF and HCl emissions below the detection limit, and to achieve the requirement, facilities
would need to cease cullet use and
substitute with other materials.

The commenter recommended revising the rule to require facilities to
‘‘maintain internal documentation that work practices are in place that


### 45314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

maintain low HF and HCl emissions,’’ for 5 years, including but not limited to the following options:

• Record that cullet is reasonably consistent

with previous cullet used that has
sustained low to non-detect HF and HCl emissions; or

• Monitor chloride and/or fluoride content of

the cullet or finished glass to verify and maintain insignificant trace levels of emissions using standard chemical analytic techniques; or

• Use feedstock of raw materials having a 12-

month rolling average of chloride content at or below 0.1 percent as measured once a year using methods similar to ASTM 1152C/1152M or company-developed methods; or

• Maintain glass formulation records that

show that no ingredient contains intentionally added chloride; or

• Maintain records from a sampling program,

or obtain annual certification from cullet providers verifying that the cullet does not contain excessive CRT glass; or

• Monitor fluoride content of the finished

glass to verify that the content is consistent with historic levels of similar glass formulations; or

• In lieu of work practices, measure HF and

HCl emissions during emission testing once every 5 years to confirm that the level
of HF and HCl emissions is not a statistically significant higher level than the level measured for the furnace during the rulemaking process.
The commenter also expressed support for the proposed requirement
that these records would be maintained for inspection by a permitting authority.

Response: We acknowledge that municipal water can contain chloride and fluoride; however, our prohibition on chlorides and fluorides pertains to the cullet composition. In the final rule, we are revising the proposed work practice standards for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category to address this comment. Specifically, we are replacing the proposed requirement that cullet be ‘‘free of chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing constituents’’ with work practice standards that require wool fiberglass facilities to maintain records from either cullet suppliers or their internal inspections showing that cullet is free of the following components that would form HF or HCl in the furnace exhaust ( i.e., chlorides, fluorides, and fluorine): Glass from industrial (also known as continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, CRTs, computer monitors that include CRTs, and glass from microwave ovens,
televisions or other electronics. Wool fiberglass facilities would ensure their feedstock does not contain chloride-, fluoride-, or fluorine-bearing cullet by one of two approaches: (1) Require the providers of external cullet to verify that the cullet does not include waste glassfrom the chloride-, fluoride- or fluorinebearing sources mentioned above, or (2) Sample their raw materials to show the cullet entering the furnace does not contain glass from these types of sources. To demonstrate compliance, facilities would maintain quality
assurance records for raw materials and/ or records of glass formulations indicating the facility does not process fluoride-, fluorine-, or chloride-bearing materials in their furnaces, and that they thereby maintain low HF and HCl emissions. Major source facilities would be required to make these records available for inspection by the permitting authority upon demand.

4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the work practice
standards?

The EPA may adopt a work practice
standard rather than a numeric standard when ‘‘the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.’’ CAA sections 112(h)(1) and (2)(B). As previously explained, inresponse to comments, we had reevaluated test data that we used to
calculate the MACT floor for the proposed HCl and HF standards in our November 2011 proposal, and found
that most of the test data reflected
values below the detection limit of the test method. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were values indicating that both HCl and HF in the exhaust gas stream were below the
detection limit of the methods. We
believe such values are not a measurement of pollutants but rather an indication that such pollutants are not present in measurable concentrations. The EPA regards situations where, as here, the majority of measurements are below the detection limit as being a
situation where measurement is not ‘‘technologically practicable’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h). The
EPA also believes that unreliable
measurements raise issues of practicability, feasibility and enforceability. The application of measurement methodology in this situation would also not be ‘‘practicable
due to . . . economic limitation’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h)
because it would result in cost expended to produce analytically suspect measurements. Therefore, for the reasons provided above, in the preambles for the 2013 and 2014 supplemental proposals, and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are finalizing the work practice standards for HCl and HF emissions from furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major

sources.

As we explained in our November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68012 at 68023), in order to protect furnace components, wool fiberglass facilities identify, isolate and screen out fluoride- and chloride-bearing materials such as glass from industrial (also known as continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, CRTs, computer monitors that include CRTs, glass from microwave ovens and glass from
televisions. The furnace emissions testing shows this is an effective work practice to reduce emissions of these acid gases. HF and HCl emissions occur when recycled glass from these types of
materials enters the external cullet stream from the recycling center.

Owners/operators have two options for work practice standards. The first option is to require the providers of the external cullet to verify that the cullet does not include waste glass from the chloride-, fluoride, or fluorine-bearing
sources mentioned above. The second option is to sample the raw materials to show the cullet entering the furnace does not contain glass from these types
of sources.

We are finalizing work practice standards for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category that require wool fiberglass facilities to
maintain records from either cullet suppliers or their internal inspections showing that the external cullet is free of components that can form HF or HCl in the furnace exhaust ( i.e., chlorides, fluorides and fluorine). Facilities are required to maintain quality assurance
records for raw materials and/or records of glass formulations indicating the facility does not process fluoride-, fluorine-, or chloride-bearing materials in their furnaces, and that they thereby
maintain low HF and HCl emissions. Major source facilities are required to
make these records available for inspection by the permitting authority upon demand. Failure to maintain such
records constitutes a violation from the requirement.

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)

1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)?

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of


### 45315 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA,

emissions standards or limitations must

be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. We proposed eliminating the SSM exemption in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing rules for major sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN).

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed work practice standards in these rules (both 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN and the new 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN) for periods of startup and shutdown. We proposed the incorporation of work practice standards at startup and shutdown for major sources into the GACT standards

for area sources. This would mean that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources would have to comply with an alternative compliance provision for startup and shutdown that would require sources to keep records showing

that emissions were routed to the air pollution control devices and that these control devices were operated at the parameters established during the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the applicable

emission limits.

We also provided proposed regulatory

text in the General Provisions applicability tables in each subpart in several respects consistent with vacatur of the SSM exemption. For example, we proposed eliminating the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN that the source develop an SSM plan. We also proposed eliminating and revising certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are related to the SSM exemption.

In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed that affected sources comply with practices that are used by the best performers in the source category (7968016).

2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)?

We have not changed any aspect of the proposed SSM provisions for 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN and NNN since the 2014 supplemental proposal. 3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources), and what are our responses?

We received comments for and against the proposed revisions to remove the SSM exemptions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. The commenters who were against the proposed revisions did not provide new information or a basis for the EPA to change the proposed provisions and did not provide
sufficient information to show that facilities cannot comply with the work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The comments and our specific responses to those
comments can be found in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042).

4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)?

For the reasons provided above, in the preamble for the proposed rules, and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP for major and area sources;
eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or modified inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are, therefore, finalizing our proposed determination that facilities comply with the work practice standards for periods of startupand shutdown for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces in 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN and NNN.

F. Other Changes Made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (Major and Area Sources)

1. What other changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources)?

a. Electronic Reporting (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)

As stated in the preamble to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators of wool manufacturing facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports. See the
discussion in section III.G of this preamble for more detail. b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)

For both major and area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 29 for measuring the
concentrations of chromium.

For major sources only, we are finalizing requirements for methods to measure PM, phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol. We are finalizing the requirement, as proposed, to maintain the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit when using Method
5 to measure PM emissions from furnaces. We are also amending the NESHAP to allow owners or operators
to measure PM emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method 5 or Method

29.

We are finalizing, as proposed, the
addition of EPA Method 318 for measuring the concentration of phenol
and alternative test methods for measuring the concentration of methanol (EPA Methods 318 or 308). We are finalizing, as proposed, the replacement of a minimum sampling time of 1 hour with the specification to collect 10 spectra when using EPA Method 318. For Method 316, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to collect a minimum sampling volume of 2 dscm; however, we are not finalizing the proposed minimum sampling run time for EPA Method 316 of 2 hours. We are also finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and chromium; and compliance procedures for HF and HCl.

Additionally, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit for gas-fired furnaces no later than July 31, 2017, and annually thereafter. We are also finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol emissions limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 2017, and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing the requirement for new sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits no later than January 25, 2016 or 180 days after initial startup,whichever is later. Gas-fired glassmelting furnaces must demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limits annually after the first compliance test, and whenever the
amount of cullet increases from that used in the most recent performance test


### 45316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

showing compliance with the standard, and all other processes must demonstrate compliance with the other emission limits every 5 years after the first successful compliance test.

c. Applicability and Compliance Period (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)

For major sources, we are clarifying, as proposed, that 40 CFR part 63, NNN applies to FA lines regardless of the product being manufactured on the FA line and we are finalizing the compliance period of 2 years for existing sources subject to the chromium, formaldehyde, HCl, HF, phenol, PM, and methanol emission

limits.

For area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed, the compliance period of 2 years for existing sources subject to the

chromium emission limits.

d. Definitions (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)

In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions that apply to both major and area sources. These include a definition for ‘‘gas-fired glass-melting furnace’’, revisions to the definition of ‘‘new source’’, and the notification requirements to update the citation to the November 2011 proposal. We are finalizing, as proposed, a definition for ‘‘incinerator’’ in 40 CFR part 63, NNN (major sources).

e. Parameter Monitoring (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)

For both major and area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring requirements for furnaces to provide flexibility in establishing appropriate monitoring parameters. We are also requiring that facilities operating gas-fired furnaces maintain a 30-day rolling average of the percentage

of cullet used in the raw materials fed

to the furnace. To demonstrate compliance with this operating
parameter, owners or operators must record a daily average value of the percentage of cullet used for each operating day and must include all of the daily averages recorded during the previous 30 operating days in calculating the rolling 30-day average.

For major sources only, we are also finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring requirements for FA lines, to provide flexibility in establishing appropriate monitoring parameters. f. General Provisions Applicability Table (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)

For major sources, we are also making
minor corrections to the citations in Table 1 (40 CFR part 63 General Provision applicability table) to reflect the final amendments in this action, and
the revisions that have been made to the
General Provisions since 1999.

For area sources, we are identifying the applicability of part 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions to subpart NN.

2. How did the provisions regarding these other changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources) change since proposal?

We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance period; definitions; or the General Provision applicability table. However, we are revising the parameter monitoring standards of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN to require daily monitoring and recording of the percentage of cullet used in the raw materials fed to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces and calculation of a rolling 30- day average. The parameter monitoring requirements for area sources regulated by subpart NN reference the same requirements for major sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources), and what are our responses?

We received several comments received regarding electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance period; parameter monitoring; definitions or
revisions to the General Provisions applicability table. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the technology review and our responses to these comments. Additional comments regarding these changes to the NESHAP and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042).

Comment: For both the major (NNN) and the area (NN) source rules, one commenter requested a one-time performance test, or alternatively a 5- year testing requirement for furnaces, instead of the proposed annual performance tests, and asked that
sources be allowed to test one ‘representative’ furnace instead of having to test every furnace subject to
the rule. The commenter contended that
the EPA’s rationale that chromium emissions increase with age has no factual basis because age is not a
causative factor for increased chromium emissions. The commenter also pointed out that annual testing is not consistent with other MACT (the Hazardous Waste MACT requires testing every 5 years), GACT, and NSPS standards, as well as state performance testing requirements.

Response: In our April 2013 supplemental proposal (72 FR 22378), the EPA proposed reduced testing requirements for sources with emissions that are 75 percent or less of the proposed chromium limit. Subsequent to that proposal, the EPA determined that this reduced testing frequency would not provide sufficient information to determine compliance with the rule for either the plant operator or the EPA because chromium emissions increase with furnace age.
Refer to the EPA’s memorandum
‘‘Chromium Emissions and Furnace Age’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042–0332) for a summary of the data and
information that EPA used to determine that furnace age causes and increase in chromium emissions for gas-fired furnaces. Regarding the comment that
there are some federal and state regulations that require only initial testing, there are also federal and state regulations that require annual testing ( e.g., Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). Each regulation establishes a testing frequency based on the particular characteristics of the industry that will allow the EPA to ensure compliance with the standards. We have determined that annual testing is appropriate here because the data and
the technical literature show that a
furnace’s chromium emissions can increase over a period of a few years. The wool fiberglass furnace refractory products degrade due to the corrosive and erosive nature of the wool fiberglass
furnace environment. The wool fiberglass oxyfuel furnaces operate continuously over the furnace campaign of 10–12 years, and, according to industry statements, as the furnace ages, it loses an average of 20,000 pounds annually from the refractory. Thepattern of refractory erosion is semispherical, and the exposed refractory surface area increases exponentially because it is constantly being eroded in a curved 3-dimensional surface pattern. This pattern of furnace refractory wear is responsible for the exponential
increase in chromium emissions from wool fiberglass furnaces. For more information on the relationship between


### 45317 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

wool fiberglass furnace age and increasing chromium emissions, see the paper ‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Furnaces,’’ June 2015, in the docket to this rule).

Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s listing all gas-fired furnaces for regulation under the area source rule for chromium emissions, and asserted that for both the major source rule and the area source rule, only certain gas-fired furnaces, oxyfuel furnaces, should be regulated for emissions of chromium compounds. The commenter suggested that the furnace type and design, not the
chromium content of furnace refractories, impacts chrome emissions, and only oxyfuel furnaces have the specific design features associated with high chromium emissions. The commenter listed the following factors as responsible for oxyfuel furnaces emitting high hexavalent chromium: Higher flame temperature, high bulk wall temperature (oxyfuel temperatures peak at 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit; other gas furnaces peak at 3,560 degrees Fahrenheit), more chrome refractory brick above glass level, higher water vapor concentration, and an oxidizing atmosphere. The commenter argued that some of the air-gas furnaces that are not oxyfuel have lower surface temperature, and the surface temperature above the glass line is the single most influential variable influencing hexavalent chromium emissions, not the fuel type. In the commenter’s opinion, air-gas furnaces should not be regulated in the area source rule alongside oxyfuel
furnaces.

The commenter noted that one air-gas furnace was measured emitting high levels of chromium compounds, pointing out that it is different from other non-oxyfuel air-gas furnaces
because it is not standard construction
and it was at the end of its life. The
commenter also added that furnace has
now been shut down.

The commenter also indicated that, despite their potential for increased chrome emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will
continue to be used for a number of important reasons, including environmental benefits: (1) Oxyfuel
furnaces reduce NO X and CO emissions because they emit less of these pollutants than does combustion with air, and some state and local regulations require reduced NO X emissions; (2) oxyfuel firing reduces NO X emissions because it does not introduce nitrogen from combustion air into the furnace; (3) oxyfuel furnaces use less energy than air-gas furnaces by obviating the need to heat nitrogen contained in ambient air and, thus, produce less greenhouse gas emissions; and (4) oxyfuel firing also produces a reduced volume of flue gases which lowers the gas velocity in the
furnace combustion zone and lowers the potential to entrain PM.

Response: We note that this is a comment addressing the furnace technology of the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, and as such applies to both major sources (under NNN) and area sources (under NN). This
comment is addressed here as it first applies to major sources. We note that the same principles apply to area sources in this source category.

We disagree with the commenter that air-gas furnaces do not warrant a
chromium emission limit. Furnace
emissions test data were collected from all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to determine the scope and
extent of the area source rule limits. The data collected for gas-fired furnaces show that oxyfuel furnaces, as the commenter correctly points out, have the greatest potential to emit chromium compounds, followed by air-gas furnaces. This is because both types of gas-fired furnaces operate at elevated temperatures (exceeding 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit) at and above the level of the glass melt (well in excess of the temperature required to liberate and oxidize chromium compounds from the chromium refractory of the furnace vessel), are heated with natural gas and air (air-gas) or natural gas and oxygen (oxyfuel), and are constructed using chromium refractories that are capable of resisting the corrosive and erosive wear inherent in wool fiberglass furnace

environment.

In addition, as the commenter acknowledged, one air-gas furnace constructed using what the commenter described as a ‘‘non-standard design,’’
measured chromium emissions at levels higher than most of the oxyfuel furnaces that were tested. Additionally, according to industry comments and the
information we collected under the 2012 ICR, all the oxyfuel furnaces in the source category are constructed using materials similar in type and chromium
content to those used to construct the highest emitting oxyfuel furnace. There is nothing to prevent a similar furnace from being constructed at any site. However, as required, we set emissions
limits based on the information available to us, and we find that both oxyfuel furnaces and air-gas furnaces have greater propensity than electric furnaces, by virtue of their construction, design, and operating temperatures, to form and emit chromium compounds.

As explained in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal, these conditions (high temperatures, available chromium and corrosive furnace gases) are factors that contribute to higher chromium emissions at wool fiberglass furnaces. As stated by the commenter and by other industry representatives, wool fiberglass companies intend to expand their use of chromium refractories in furnace designs.

We disagree with the commenter’s view that we should address specific facilities only for this regulation. First,
we note that NESHAP are national rules that apply to source categories rather than individual facilities, and while we do have the ability to subcategorize by process size, type, or class, we cannot simply target an individual facility or facilities. Second, nothing prevents an oxyfuel or air-gas furnace similar to the high emitting furnaces to be constructed at any existing or new wool fiberglass facility, and it is incumbent upon the EPA to prevent the danger to public
health that would result from such a furnace being located at other sites. As the commenter pointed out, ‘‘Despite their potential for increased chrome emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will
continue to be used for a number of important reasons . . ..’’, and as discussed in our 2011 proposal, we considered the resulting impact if the
same furnace were to be constructed at any other existing wool fiberglass manufacturing site. As documented in our auxiliary risk characterization
‘‘Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories’’ and ‘‘Maximum Predicted HEM–3 Chronic Risks (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing) based on Revised— What If Analysis,’’ available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042–0086 and EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042–0263, respectively), we found that the CertainTeed facility in Athens, Georgia would have a risk of
400-in-1 million if it were to install a furnace similar to the high-chromium emitting furnace at Kansas City; and that the Athens, GA facility is now an area source that will be subject to the new area source standard (having recently phased out the use of phenol/ formaldehyde on the bonded lines). While most wool fiberglass furnaces at area sources currently emit chromium at levels well below the proposed level of the chromium emission limits, the limits serve as a backstop to prevent high emitters from emitting chromium compounds in an uncontrolled manner.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the proposed changes to Method 5 that reduced the testing temperature of the probe by 100 degrees to improve the accuracy of the method,


### 45318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

23 Testing was conducted at the Certainteed, Inc. facility in Mountaintop, PA in December 1991, October 1995, and during several tests conducted during the 1998–1999 time period for the state compliance reports. and whether this change will increase the potential for noncompliance with the PM standard. Specifically, the commenter stated that ‘‘what once may have passed through the apparatus now may become filterable’’ and, thus, be
counted as PM because of the temperature difference. Further, the commenter pointed out that the data
used to establish MACT for PM were collected at the higher temperature specified in 40 CFR 63.1385(a)(5) of subpart NNN.

Response: In the final regulation, we are requiring that owners or operators
conduct annual emissions tests for chromium, and to test for PM emissions every 5 years. To reduce the testing burden on facilities, the final rule specifies that owners or operators can
measure PM emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method 5 or Method 29. Consequently, for the years when the facility must test for both chromium and filterable PM emissions, owners or operators can use Method 29 to obtain
measurements for both chromium and filterable PM, rather than having to use Methods 5 and 29 separately.

The 1999 NESHAP specified that owners or operators must use EPA Method 5 with the filter temperature
maintained at 350 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit during for the test. However,
Method 29 refers to the filter temperature specifications in Method 5 which requires that the filter be
maintained at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit during testing. To maintain consistency with Method 29, we are amending the NESHAP to specify that owners or operators must maintain the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit when using Method 5 to
measure filterable PM concentrations. We acknowledge that maintaining the
Method 5 filter at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit during testing has the potential capture to more PM than would be captured at the higher filter temperature; however, we do not believe that the change in filter temperature that we are specifying in
the final rule will result in wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities being in noncompliance with the final PM
standards. As noted in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22383), the data submitted to EPA, which
includes filterable PM data collected using Method 29 and a filter temperature operating at 248 ± 25degrees Fahrenheit, show that all gasfired glass-melting furnaces are currently meeting the PM standard, as proposed, of 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled.

Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s proposal to reduce testing frequency to every 3 years. Due to the past history of unknown and unreported chromium emissions, innovation and changes within the wool fiberglass industry, the potential for unpredictable changes in chromium emissions, and the environmental justice impacts of the industry, the commenter requested the EPA to increase the frequency and quality of the monitoring and reporting requirements of the rules.

Response: The EPA is finalizing annual testing, and removing the option proposed in 2013 to test every 3 years. The EPA agrees with the commenter that annual testing is required due to the
fact that emission test data show that emissions can significantly increase with furnace age. Refer to section III.D.4 of this preamble and to the 2014 supplemental proposal for further
discussion about the EPA’s rationale for requiring annual testing.

4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources)?

For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance period; parameter monitoring; definitions; and the General Provision applicability table.

VII. What is included in the final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for area

sources?

A. Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources

We are finalizing, as described in this final action, the chromium emissionlimits for both new and existing gasfired glass-melting furnaces at area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (see Table 4 in section V.E of this preamble).

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (d)(5) for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

We initially proposed GACT
standards for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category on April 15, 2013 (78 FR 22377). In that proposal, we proposed emission limits for chromium (0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled) and PM (0.33 pounds per ton of glass pulled) for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources. To maintain consistency with the major source rule, we proposed that facilities use the same requirements for PM and chromium test methods and monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. We also proposed to
include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. In the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68024), we proposed removal of the PM emission limit based on public comments the EPA received asserting that setting both PM and chromium limits was not necessary. We reviewed the technologies and emissions test data for controls that are in place at wool fiberglass furnaces. In some test reports,
we had both inlet and outlet
measurements of both PM and
chromium. From these tests we saw that, in order for furnaces to meet the chromium limit, they would have to control PM, a fraction of which is chromium compounds. Because chromium is the specific pollutant of concern from the furnace process, and because under the Strategy we may either address pollutants of concern through an appropriate surrogate, or directly regulate the pollutant of concern, we are setting emission limits only for chromium from area sources. However, affected sources will still need
to achieve PM reductions in order to
meet the chromium limit. The PMcontrols in place at gas-fired glassmelting furnaces achieve an average efficiency of 98 percent. PM in the furnace exhaust includes chromium, and due to the high production rate of the continuous furnace process, this can be a significant amount of chromium emitted during the course of a year. Source testing conducted on two wool fiberglass furnaces at one facility 23
measured chromium at both the inlet
and the outlet of the DESP. This test showed chromium entering the DESP averaged 1,500 pounds per year. Both
PM and chromium were measured at the
outlet of the DESP: Emissions of PM averaged 1.5 tons per year, and emissions of chromium averaged 11.4 pounds per year. This indicates to us that if sources attempted to remove their PM controls they would not be able to
meet the chromium limit.

In the 2014 supplemental proposal, we also withdrew our proposal to
include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions (79 FR 68015).


### 45319 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

2. How did the GACT analysis change for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area

sources?

In response to comments on our proposed chromium compounds limits,
and as discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, we are finalizing a chromium compounds emission limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces for major sources at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. Consistent with our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we are not finalizing a PM emissions limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces

at area sources.

Based on comments we received in response to the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we again reviewed the cost and control options and found using new cost information that the limit as proposed was not as cost effective as we initially believed. We determined that it was appropriate to modify the proposed limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled because
the cost effectiveness for the emission reduction option was $660,000 per pound of chromium reduced for the raw material substitution option, and $620,000 per pound chromium reduced for the furnace rebuild option. We
believe these costs are not reasonable compared to other cases where the EPA has regulated highly toxic pollutants, such as hexavalent chromium. We, therefore, reviewed the data to determine whether a higher limit than previously proposed would be more cost effective while still significantly reducing chromium emissions from wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We found that all gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass area sources currently emit chromium compounds at rates below 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. These area sources together emit 18 pounds of chromium compounds annually.

We compared the chromium emission
reductions that would have resulted under the previously proposed emission limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled to the reductions that result from the final limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. The limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled would
have resulted in a chromium emissions reduction of 8.5 pounds per year at area
sources. The final limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled does not result in any chromium emissions
reductions. This is due to the overall
low emissions of chromium at area
sources based on the most recent test
data. The furnaces at area sources are mostly new furnaces of advanced design. While immediate emission reductions would not be realized, this final limit sets a backstop so thatanother high-chromium-emitting, gasfired glass-melting furnace cannot be operated at an area source in this industry. This is important for this industry because certain furnaces have been shown to emit increasing amounts of chromium as their high-chromium refractory lining begins to degrade.

We revised our GACT analysis as two approaches could be used by industry toreduce chromium emissions from gasfired furnaces. One approach is to
rebuild the furnace at an annualized cost of $462,000 per year per furnace, and the other is to replace one raw material (cullet) with another material (raw minerals), which the industry
stated would result in lower chromium emissions, at an average cost of about $1.3 million per year, depending on the production rate of each area source facility. Industry test data show that
area sources will need to maintain their currently low levels of chromium emissions to meet the 0.00025 pounds per ton limit.

Further, in evaluating available technology at area sources, we also considered the furnace technology for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in use at major sources. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may set the GACT
emission limit for area sources that provides for the use of generally available control technologies to reduce HAP, and we are not precluded from setting the limits for area sources equivalent to the limits for major sources. In this instance, as previously explained, there are no differences between gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in use at area and major sources. Moreover, major sources become area sources only by virtue of eliminating formaldehyde from their processes. Therefore, we believe that the control measure for reducing chromium emissions ( i.e., furnace rebuild) used by major sources is generally available for area sources, and we are finalizing the same emission limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources, under CAA section 112(d)(5).

3. What key comments did we receive on the GACT analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, and what are our responses?

We received comments in support of and against our GACT analyses. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the GACT analysis for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and our responses to these
comments. Additional comments on the risk assessment and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042).

Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA has not met procedural requirements necessary to regulate area
sources under CAA section 112. The
commenter contended that the EPA does not have the authority to list or regulate area sources under CAA section 112 unless the agency first finds that the source category presents a threat of
adverse effects to human health or the environment. The commenter argued
that the EPA’s own risk assessment
indicates ‘‘risks due to hexavalent chromium and formaldehyde are acceptable.’’ In the commenter’s opinion ‘‘all the EPA has done is claim that: (1) Because area sources, like major sources, contribute chromium compounds, and (2) because many sources that once were major sources have since become area sources, it
follows that area sources should also be regulated.’’ Further, the commenter stated that the EPA, in listing area sources, has not complied with section 307 of the CAA, which requires the EPA to provide to the public a summary of
the basis for its decision to list the wool fiberglass industry as an area source ( i.e., factual data underlying the decision, methodology used in obtaining data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposal). The commenter also argued that section
553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) mandates a ‘‘notice and comment’’ period for the EPA’s decision to list this industry as an area source due to an ‘‘adverse effects’’ finding, to give stakeholders an opportunity to comment on findings that form the basis of the proposed rulemaking.

Response: In section II.D of the preamble to our 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013), we presented the legal basis for our decision to add gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces to the list of area source categories to be regulated. Sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA require the EPA to identify and list the area source categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban
air toxics associated with area sources and subject them to standards under the CAA section 112(d). Specifically, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA require the EPA to list area sources representing 90 percent or more
of emissions of the 30 urban HAP regardless of whether the EPA has


### 45320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

issued an adverse effects finding for each individual area source category that contributes to achieving the 90 percent emissions goal.

As documented in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013) and in the
memorandum ‘‘Technical
Memorandum—Emission Standards for Meeting the 90 Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(3) and Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act’’ (February 18, 2011; EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042–0262), the EPA has achieved the 90 percent reduction of national chromium emissions required by the Strategy; however, as further stated in the 2013 supplemental proposal, nothing in the CAA prevents the agency from going beyond the statutory minimum of 90 percent, especially if generally available control technology for the source category is available at a reasonable cost. Indeed, to date, we
have established emission standards for sources accounting for almost 100 percent of area source emissions of certain urban HAP ( e.g., 99 percent of arsenic and beryllium compound emissions).

Regarding the commenter’s opinion that the reason the EPA is regulating gas-fired glass-melting furnaces as area
sources is that these sources were once regulated under the NESHAP and that they are similar to major sources, the
EPA did discuss these facts in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22382, April 15, 2013).
These facts serve to inform the EPA’s understanding of this area source category, but they are not the reason the EPA is regulating these area sources. The EPA is regulating gas-fired furnaces located at area sources to comply with the Strategy to address the annual
emissions of chromium from these sources, as the EPA explained in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013). In doing so, the EPA is addressing the high levels of chromium emissions, in particular hexavalent chromium emissions. As explained in the 2013supplemental proposal preamble, gasfired glass-melting furnaces in this source category have the potential to emit high emissions of chromium and to experience emission increases in the
future:

‘‘. . . we have determined that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities can emit higher levels of metal HAP, and also higher than expected levels of chromium than electric glass-melting furnaces. This is due to the use of high chromium refractories above the glass melt line, and use of these refractories is essential to obtain the desired glass-melting furnace life. Also, the industry has indicated that the current trend is to replace air-gasglass-melting furnaces with oxyfuel glassmelting furnaces. Oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces have the highest potential for
elevated chromium emissions as discussed further in section IV.A of this preamble. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are
located at area sources to the list of area sources regulated in the Urban Air Toxics Program.’’ (78 FR 22377, April 15, 2013)

Based on the chromium emissions data for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in the source category available to the EPA, we have established that emissions for a furnace can vary according to its type, design, operation, and age. The EPA provided an example in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal of such variability for the CertainTeed’s Kansas City facility, the highest-emitting glass-melting furnace, for which chromium emissions (93 percent of which were in the hexavalent state) increased from 5 pounds per year to 540 pounds per year over a period of 7 years (78 FR 22381). These facts demonstrate the current and potential future high levels of chromium emitted from area sources. Further, the EPA has clearly indicated the high level of health
risk associated with chromium emissions. In the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal, the EPA stated
‘‘Hexavalent chromium inhalation is associated with lung cancer, and EPA
has classified it as a Class A known human carcinogen, per EPA’s classification system for the characterization of the overall weight of evidence for carcinogenicity’’ (78 FR 22374, April 15, 2013).

Regarding the comment that the EPA has not complied with section 307 of the CAA because it has not provided to the public a summary of the basis for its decision to list gas-fired glass-melting furnaces as area sources ( i.e., factual data underlying the decision, methodology used in obtaining data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposal), the EPA disagrees. We stated our intention in our 2013 supplemental proposal to exceed the 90 percent
threshold for chromium emissions under the Strategy by listing gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources (78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013), and we made clear our intent to regulate chromium due to the toxicity of the substance (78 FR 22374, April 15, 2013).
We did not conduct a health assessment and finding for chromium from this area source category because we are not obligated to do so under sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), or (k) of the CAA. For example, in our notice of revision to the area source category list in 2002 (67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002), we listed 23 new source categories as area sources to meet or exceed the 90 percent threshold for all 30 HAP addressed by the Strategy, and the document included no risk-based rationale for listing each source category that exceeded the 90 percent target.

Further, regarding the comment that the EPA has not complied with APA section 553 and section 307 of the CAA, we described our methodology for collecting these emissions data, as
described in section II.E of the 2013 supplemental proposal preamble (78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013), and provided an opportunity for comment following that supplemental proposal. Regarding the legal basis for our listing area sources in section II.D, we presented this
information in section II.E of the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013) in compliance with section 307.

Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed regulation of area sources because it is inappropriate and unjustified for the EPA to draw firm
conclusions at this time about the need to regulate area sources, in particular regarding a threat of adverse effects to
human health from area sources. The
commenter contended that the EPA’s
assessment of chromium emissions from the major source category in the 2011 proposal was fundamentally flawed and did not support the 2011 proposal, and
that the EPA admitted in the 2011 proposal preamble that it must collect more information before drawing a conclusion regarding the wool fiberglass area source category and ‘‘a threat of
adverse effects to human health or the environment.’’ The commenter argued
that both of these facts reflect on the EPA’s readiness to regulate area sources.
The commenter further observed that the EPA may regulate a category of area sources only after making a finding under CAA section 112(c)(3) that HAP emissions from such source category present ‘‘a threat of adverse effects to
human health or the environment’’ that warrant regulation.

Another commenter objected to the proposed regulation of area sources, given the limited value such a rule would provide. The commenter stated that the majority of wool fiberglass manufacturers are no longer major sources, observing that the most significant change since 1999 is the voluntary substitution of phenol/ formaldehyde binders with non-phenol/ formaldehyde binders, resulting in
reduction in HAP emissions from this industry of the chief HAP regulated by the Wool Fiberglass MACT Standard.


### 45321 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

The commenter suggested that the health risk arising from the production of wool fiber glass insulation products has been significantly and sufficiently reduced and that any remaining residual risk does not justify subjecting the industry to additional regulatory requirements in the form of an area
source standard.

Response: As described in the preamble to the April 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22379),
the EPA conducted a CAA section 114 survey to collect additional test data on chromium emissions from glass-melting furnaces, so that the EPA would have test data for all glass-melting furnaces. The area source standards proposed in 2013 and being finalized in this rulemaking are based on this complete set of emission data. Regarding the
comments that there is insufficient health risk to warrant regulation of area sources and that the EPA is required to
establish a ‘‘threat of adverse health effects’’ to regulate area sources, as noted in the comment above, the legal basis for our decision to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces to the list of area source categories to be regulated is based on sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA which require the EPA to identify and list the area source categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban
air toxics associated with area sources and subject them to standards under the CAA section 112(d), and is not based on CAA section 112(c)(3).

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the GACT analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area

sources?

Because of the considerations discussed above in this preamble, as well as in the preamble for the November 2014 supplemental proposal and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042), we are finalizing revised GACT standards.

B. What are the final requirements for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area

sources?

In this action, we are revising the proposed chromium emission limit for gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled, based
on our re-assessment of emissions data for newly-rebuilt furnaces (see section VI.A.2 of this preamble for a discussion
of the basis of the revised emission limit for chromium compounds). We are also requiring that facilities at both major
and area sources establish the materials mix, including the percentages of raw minerals and cullet used in gas-fired glass-melting furnaces during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the
chromium emission limit. The source must maintain the percentage of cullet
in the raw material mixture at or below the level established during the most recent performance test showing compliance with the standard. If the gas-fired glass-melting furnace uses 100- percent cullet during the performance test and is in compliance with the chromium emissions limit, then the source is not required to monitor cullet usage. Other requirements for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, including startup and shutdown, compliance dates, test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are the same requirements as those specified for major source facilities in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. Therefore, 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN cites 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, for these requirements.

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area

sources?

The GACT standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources being promulgated in this action are effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing sources is July 31, 2017. New sources must comply
with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29, 2015, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.

The effective and compliance dates
finalized in this action are consistent with the dates we presented in the 2014 supplemental proposal.

D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources?

The requirements for electronic reporting of performance test data for wool fiberglass manufacturing area
sources are the same as the requirements for the mineral wool production source category. See section III.G of this preamble for a description of the requirements.

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category

We estimate that there are eight mineral wool facilities that are major sources and, therefore, would be subject to the final NESHAP provisions.

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)

We estimate that there are 30 facilities in this source category (10 major sources and 20 area sources). Based on the responses to the CAA section 114 ICR,
we believe that two of the 10 wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources would rebuild two
furnaces before the end of their operational lifecycles. We believe that all furnaces at area sources can comply
with the final chromium emission limit without rebuilding before the end of their operational lifecycles.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category

Emissions of HAP from mineral wool production facilities have declined over
the last decade as a result of federal and state rules and the industry’s own
initiatives. The amendments we are finalizing in this action would maintain COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol emissions at their current low
levels.

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)

We expect that these final RTR
amendments would result in reductions of 524 pounds of chromium compounds, 490 pounds of which is in
the hexavalent form. Available
information indicates that all affected facilities will be able to comply with the final work practice standards for HF and HCl without additional controls, and
that there will be no measurable reduction in emissions of these gases.

Also, we anticipate that there will be
continued reductions in PM emissions due to these final PM standards, which all sources currently are meeting due to the use of well-performing PM controls. Industry comments, statements, and
sources in the technical literature
indicate that as sources of industrial oxygen become available in areas proximate to wool fiberglass facilities, such sources will convert their existing furnaces to oxyfuel technology. As
described in the ‘‘Mechanisms of
Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces,’’ June 2015, PM emissions are greatly reduced compared to electric furnaces and air-gas furnace technology.

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will result from the increased electricity usage


### 45322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

associated with the operation of control devices. We do not anticipate significant secondary impacts from the final amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT.

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category

All lines currently in operation can
meet the emission limits finalized in this action without installing new control equipment or using different input materials. The total annualized
costs for these final amendments are estimated at $48,800 (2013 dollars) for additional testing and monitoring.

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)

The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the ability of each facility to meet the final emissions limits for PM, chromium compounds, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The memorandum, ‘‘Cost Impacts of the
Final NESHAP RTR Amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category,’’ includes a complete description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is available in
the docket.

There are a total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at five major source facilities. Compliance testing is $10,000 per furnace, resulting in total testing costs for glass-melting furnaces of $80,000. At this time, thereare two facilities with a total of two gasfired glass-melting furnaces that do not
meet the final emissions limit for chromium compounds. We anticipate that these facilities would opt to reduce the operational lifecycle for both of the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.

Based on the public comments and information received in response to November 2014 supplemental proposal,
we revised our cost estimate from reducing the operational furnace lifecycle (from 10 to 7 years), to a costestimate for rebuilding gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. In this cost estimate, we included the cost of transferring production to another facility while the furnace is being rebuilt.

For major sources, the estimated capital cost of rebuilding the furnace is $10.7 million per furnace with a total annualized cost of $462,000 per furnace.

Two major source facilities operate 13 FA manufacturing lines, and, therefore, would incur testing costs (annualized cost of $10,400 in 2013 dollars). The
total annualized costs for the final amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP for major sources are estimated at $1.01 million (2013 dollars).

Of the 20 area source facilities, five facilities operate a total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. Under these final amendments, none of the area source wool fiberglass facilities will incur any capital costs to comply with the final chromium compounds
emissions limit. Five area source facilities would be subject to new costs for compliance testing on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, which will total $80,000 annually (2013 dollars).

D. What are the economic impacts?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category

As noted in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68025), we performed an economic impact analysis for mineral wool consumers and producers nationally. The impacts to producers affected by this final rule
are annualized costs of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues, using 2013 year revenue data to be consistent with the cost year for our analysis. Prices and output for mineral wool products should increase by no more than the impact of cost to revenues for producers; thus, mineral wool prices should increase by less than 0.01 percent. Hence, the overall economic impact of this final rule would be negligible to the affected industries and their consumers. For more information, please refer to the ‘‘Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis’’ for this final rulemaking that is in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042).

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)

We performed an economic impact analysis for wool fiberglass consumers and producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs estimated for
both the RTR and area source final rules. The impacts to producers affected by this final rule are annualized costs of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues, using 2013 revenue data to be consistent with the cost year for our analysis. Prices and output for wool fiberglass products should increase by no more than the impact on cost to revenues for producers; thus, wool fiberglass prices should increase by less than 0.01 percent. Hence, the overall economic impact of this final rule would be negligible on the affected industries and their consumers. For more information, please refer to the ‘‘Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis’’ for this final rulemaking that is in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). E. What are the benefits?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category

The amendments we are finalizing in
this action will maintain the reductions in COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions that the industry has achieved over time at their currently
low levels.

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)

We estimate that this action will
achieve HAP emissions reduction of 524 pounds per year of chromium compounds from the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. The final standards will result in significant
reductions in the actual and MACTallowable emissions of chromium compounds and will reduce the actualand potential cancer risks and noncancer health effects due to emissions of chromium compounds from this source
category.

In the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68026), we estimated that the proposed emission limits for FA and RS manufacturing lines would reduce organic HAP emissions by 123 tons per year. Based on the available data, we believe that all FA lines currently meet the final emission limits; therefore, all of the emission reductions of organic HAP presented in the 2014 supplemental proposal were attributed
to RS lines. As discussed in section V.H of this preamble, we are not establishing emission limits for RS manufacturing lines in this final action. Consequently, the emissions limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol finalized in this
action do not achieve reductions of organic HAP; however, the emission limits codify the reductions in organic
HAP from FA lines that have been achieved by the industry since the 1999 NESHAP was promulgated. We have
issued a CAA section 114 ICR to obtain process and emissions data for RS manufacturing lines and we will evaluate RTR limits for these sources, based on the CAA section 114 ICR data,
at a future date.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the integration of


### 45323 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

24 Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2014. Available at http:// www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/
documents/1995

_ childrens

_health

_ policy

_ statement.pdf. environmental justice into the agency’s rulemaking efforts, including
recommendations for the consideration and conduct of analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during the development of a
rule.

Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis for mineral wool production and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities prior to proposal to identify any overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations. This analysis gives an indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the

sources.

The EPA also conducted a risk-based socio-economic analysis for populations living near wool fiberglass facilities titled ‘‘Risk and Technology Review— Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities,’’ which is available in the docket. The analysis indicated that 1,207,000 individuals living within 50 km of the wool fiberglass facilities
have a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or greater due to emissions from wool fiberglass facilities. The specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of minority population potentially impacted by emissions from wool fiberglass facilities ( i.e., within 50 km) is greater than the national minority percentage (44 percent for the source category compared to 28-percent nationwide). Furthermore, other demographic groups with source category percentages greater than the corresponding national percentage include: The population over 25 without a high school diploma (18 percent compared to 15 percent); the population from 18 to 64 years of age (66 percent compared to 63 percent), and the population below the poverty level (15 percent compared to 14 percent). The other demographic categories potentially impacted by emissions from wool fiberglass facilities ( i.e., African American, Native American, ages less than 18, and ages 65 and up) are less than or equal to the corresponding national percentage.

The EPA’s integration of environmental justice into the agency’s rulemaking efforts was also thoroughly demonstrated by EPA’s Region 7 response to emissions data obtained through this rulemaking. Region 7 proactively engaged the local community and identified potential environmental concerns; conducted air monitoring and modeling; and opened lines of communication and launched several opportunities for the community to voice concerns, ask questions, and
receive additional information. Additionally, EPA Headquarters and Region 7 worked together to provide resources for communities, as well as to
ensure that feedback received from the Region 7 communities was being considered in this rulemaking.

Through our analyses, the EPA has
determined that these final rules for 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN, DDD, and NNN will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations. Additionally, the final changes to the
NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations by reducing emissions of chromium compounds by over 524 pounds per year and will not cause any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations. Our demographic analysis shows that disproportionately impacted minority areas will benefit from the
lower emissions. Further details concerning this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled, ‘‘Updated Environmental Justice Review: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR,’’ a copy of which is
available in the dockets for this action.

G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?

As part of the health and risk assessments, risk-based demographic analysis conducted for this action, risks
to infants and children were assessed. This analysis is documented in the following memoranda which are
available in the dockets for this action:

• ‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule’’

• ‘‘Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities’’

The results of the risk-based socioeconomic analysis for populations living near wool fiberglass facilities indicates that there are 1,207,000 individuals living within 50 km of the wool fiberglass facilities have a cancer risk of 1-in-1-million or greater (based on actual emissions). The distribution of the population with risks above 1-in-1 million is 24 percent for ages 0 to 17, 66 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 10 percent for ages 65 and up. Children ages 0 to 17 also constitute 24 percent of the population nationwide. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual emissions from wool fiberglass facilities do not have a disproportionate impacts on children ages 0 to 17.

The results of the demographic analysis show that the average percentage of children 17 years and younger in close proximity to mineral wool production and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities is similar to the percentage of the national population in this age group. The difference in the absolute number of percentage points of the population 17 years and younger from the national average indicates a 7-percent over-representation near mineral wool production and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

Consistent with the EPA’s ‘‘Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children’’,
we conducted inhalation and multipathway risk assessments for the
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories considering risk to infants
and children. 24 Children are exposed to chemicals emitted to the atmosphere via two primary routes: Either directly via inhalation, or indirectly via ingestion or
dermal contact with various media that
have been contaminated with the
emitted chemicals. The EPA considers the possibility that children might be more sensitive than adults might be to toxic chemicals, including chemical carcinogens.

For our multipathway screening assessment ( i.e., ingestion), we assessed risks for adults and various age groups of children to determine what age group was most at risk for purposes of developing the screening/emission threshold for each persistent and bioaccumulative—HAP (PB–HAP). Childrens’ exposures are expected to differ from exposures of adults due to differences in body weights, ingestion rates, dietary preferences, and other factors. It is important, therefore, to evaluate the contribution of exposures during childhood to total lifetime risk using appropriate exposure factor values, applying age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) as appropriate. The EPA developed a health protective exposure scenario whereby the receptor, at various lifestages, receives ingestion exposure
via both the farm food chain and the fish ingestion pathways.

Based on the analyses described above, the EPA has determined that the


### 45324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

changes to these rules, which will
reduce emissions of chromium compounds by over 524 pounds per year, will lead to reduced risk to
children and infants. The final amendments will also codify the reductions in emissions (COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from mineral wool facilities, and formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from wool fiberglass facilities) that the
industries have achieved since the NESHAP for the respective source categories were promulgated in 1999.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executiveorder.

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities
in these rules have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA.
The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Mineral Wool Production source category has been assigned EPA ICR number 1799.06. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category has been assigned EPA
ICR number 1160.10. You can find a copy of these ICRs in the dockets for these rules, and they are briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

The information requirements in these rulemakings are based on the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These notifications, reports and records are essential in determining compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).

Mineral Wool Production source
category:

Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed mineral wool production facilities that are major

sources.

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414). Estimated number of respondents: 8. Frequency of response: Annual.
Total estimated burden: 123 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $25,150 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources):

Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources.

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414).

Estimated number of respondents: 10. Frequency of response: Annual.
Total estimated burden: 156 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $46,142 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (area sources):

Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that are located at a plant site that is an area

source.

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414).

Estimated number of respondents: 5. Frequency of response: Annual.
Total estimated burden: 78 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $32,334 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Five of the eight mineral wool production parent companies
affected in the final rule are considered to be small entities per the definition provided in this section. There are no small businesses in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. We
estimate that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on any of those companies.

While there are some costs imposed

on affected small businesses as a result of these rulemakings, the costs

associated with this action are less than

the costs associated with the limits proposed on November 25, 2011. Specifically, the cost to small entities in

the Mineral Wool Production source category due to the changes in COS, HF, and HCl are lower as compared to the limits proposed on November 25, 2011, and April 15, 2013. None of the five small mineral wool parent companies is expected to have an annualized compliance cost of greater than 1 percent of its revenues. All other affected parent companies are not small businesses according to the SBA small

business size standard for the affected NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, we have determined that the impacts for

this final rule do not constitute a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Although these final rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,

the EPA nonetheless has tried to mitigate the impact that these rules

would have on small entities. The actions we took to mitigate impacts on small businesses include less frequent compliance testing for the entire mineral wool industry and subcategorizing the Mineral Wool Production source category in developing the proposed COS, HF and

HCl emissions limits. For more information, please refer to the economic impact and small business analysis that is in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.


### 45325 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area and major sources, and not tribal governments. There are no wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections IV.A, VI.A, VIII.F, VIII.G of this preamble and in the ‘‘Residual Risk
Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories’’
memorandum available in the dockets for this rulemaking.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use

This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and
searched their databases.

As discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDD, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN, we
conducted searches for EPA Methods 5 and 29. These searches did not identify any VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA
reference methods. The EPA solicited
comments on VCS and invited the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS; however, we did not receive comments regarding this aspect of 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN, DDD, or

NNN.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. As explained in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029),
the EPA determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. Further details concerning this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled, ‘‘Updated Environmental Justice Review: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR’’, a copy of which is
available in the dockets for this action. Additionally, the EPA engaged meaningfully with communities throughout this rulemaking process, to help them engage in the rulemaking process and to get their feedback on the proposed rulemaking. Also, EPA worked closely with Region 7, to ensure
that communities that raised concerns by the sectors covered in this rulemaking, were being adequately engaged throughout this process.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral wool production, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing.

Dated: June 25, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is
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. Subpart NN is added to part 63 to
read as follows:

**Subpart NN—National Emission Standards**

**for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources** 

Sec. 63.880 Applicability.
63.881 Definitions.
63.882 Emission standards. 63.883 Monitoring requirements. 63.884 Performance test requirements. 63.885 Test methods and procedures. 63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 63.887 Compliance dates. 63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 63.889–63.899 [Reserved] Table 1 to Subpart NN of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN

**Subpart NN—National Emission**
**Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at** 
**Area Sources**

**§ 63.880 Applicability.**

(a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each wool fiberglass manufacturing facility
that is an area source or is located at a facility that is an area source.

(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of chromium compounds, as measured according to the methods and procedures in this subpart, emitted from each new and existing gas-fired glass-melting furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area

source.

(c) The provisions of subpart A of this part that apply and those that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 to this subpart.

(d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that are not subject to subpart NNN of this part are subject to this subpart.


### 45326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

(e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces using electricity as a supplemental energy source are subject to this subpart.

**§ 63.881 Definitions.**

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2,
or in this section as follows:

Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter

emissions.

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is notconsidered part of the gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric glassmelting furnaces as defined in subpartNNN of this part are not gas-fired glassmelting furnaces.

Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time period.

Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that uses
controlled flame combustion to convert
combustible materials to noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’.

Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set and a cooling
section where the mat is cooled.

New source means any affected source
the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after April 15,

2013.

Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the manufacturing
line is located. Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility manufacturing wool fiberglass.

**§ 63.882 Emission standards.**

(a) Emission limits for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. For each existing,new, or reconstructed gas-fired glassmelting furnace, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.887 whichever date is earlier, you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere emissions in excess of 0.00025 lb of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled (0.25 lb per thousand tons glass pulled).

(b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the performance test required by §§ 63.7 and 63.1384 is completed, you must operate all affected control equipment and processes according to the following requirements.

(1)(i) You must initiate corrective
action within one hour of an alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the bag leak detection system
alarm is sounded for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(2)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic precipitator (ESP) parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(iii) You must operate the ESP such that the monitored ESP parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(3)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 3-hour block average value for the monitored parameter(s) for a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on controls, is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(iii) You must operate a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on technology, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(4)(i) You must initiate corrective
action within one hour when the average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors, or daily glass pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not so equipped, exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884, by greater than 20 percent and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(iii) You must operate each gas-fired glass-melting furnace such that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent, the average glass pull rate established during the most recent successful performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(5)(i) You must initiate corrective
action within one hour when the average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or pressure drop (for a venturi scrubber) for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established during the performance tests as specified in § 63.884 for each wet scrubbing control


### 45327 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

device and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when any scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(iii) You must operate each scrubber such that each monitored parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

**§ 63.883 Monitoring requirements.**

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

**§ 63.884 Performance test requirements.**

(a) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits in § 63.882. For existing sources, compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each of the applicable emission limits in § 63.882 by July 31, 2017. For new sources compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each of the applicable emission limits in § 63.882 by January 25, 2016 or 180 days after initial startup, whichever is later. You must conduct the performance test according to the procedures in subpart A of this part and
in this section.

(b) You must meet all applicable performance test requirements contained in subpart NNN of this part.

**§ 63.885 Test methods and procedures.**

(a) You must use the following methods to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits:

(1) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 for the selection of the sampling port location and number of sampling ports;

(2) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 for volumetric flow rate;

(3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2) for oxygen and carbon
dioxide for diluent measurements
needed to correct the concentration measurements to a standard basis;

(4) Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4 for moisture content of the stack gas;

(5) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) for the concentration of chromium compounds. Each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of two dry standard cubic meters.

(6) An alternative method, subject to approval by the Administrator.

(b) Each performance test must
consist of three runs. You must use the average of the three runs in the applicable equation for determining compliance.

**§ 63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.** 

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

**§ 63.887 Compliance dates.**

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must be in compliance with the requirements of this subpart by no later
than:

(1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing source subject to the provisions in this subpart would be July 31, 2017.

(2) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources is uponinitial startup of a new gas-fired glassmelting furnace or on July 29, 2015,
whichever is later.

(3) The compliance date for the provisions related to the electronic reporting provisions of § 63.886 is on July 29, 2015.

(b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing source subject to this subpart may request from the
Administrator an extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one additional year if such additional period is necessary for the
installation of controls. You must submit a request for an extension according to the procedures in § 63.6(i)(3).

**§ 63.888 Startups and shutdowns.**

You must meet all applicable startup and shutdown provisions contained in subpart NNN of this part.

**§§ 63.889–63.899 [Reserved]**



### TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### NN OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### NN

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(5) ............ Applicability ..................................................... Yes § 63.1(a)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.1(b)(1) .................. Initial Applicability Determination .................... Yes § 63.1(b)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.2 ........................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes .......................... ... Additional definitions in § 63.881. § 63.3 ........................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Yes § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ Prohibited Activities ......................................... Yes § 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.5(a)–(b)(2) ............ Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... Yes § 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.5(b)(5) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.5(b)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.5(c) ....................... ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved].§ 63.5(d) ....................... Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Yes


### 45328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### NN OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### NN—Continued

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation

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

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

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. No ............................... See § 63.882 for general duty requirements. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As
Soon As Possible. No

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.6(e)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.6(e)(3) .................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)

Plan. No ............................... Startups and shutdowns addressed in § 63.888. § 63.6(f)(1) ................... SSM Exemption .............................................. No § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............. Methods for Determining Compliance ............ Yes § 63.6(g) ....................... Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission ... Yes § 63.6(h)(1) .................. SSM Exemption .............................................. No § 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.7(a)–(d) ................ ......................................................................... Yes ....................... ...... § 63.884 has specific requirements. § 63.7(e)(1) .................. Performance Testing ....................................... No ............................... See § 63 .882. § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.7(f) ........................ Alternative Test Method .................................. Yes § 63.7(g)(1) .................. Data Analysis .................................................. Yes § 63.7(g)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.7(g)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.7(h) ....................... Waiver of Performance Test ........................... Yes § 63.8(a)–(b) ................ Monitoring Requirements ................................ Yes § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. No ............................... See § 63.882(b) for general duty requirement.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS No § 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ........ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.8(d)(3) .................. Written Procedures for CMS ........................... Yes, except for lastsentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required § 63.8(e)–(g) ................ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.9(a) ....................... Notification Requirements ............................... Yes § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ Initial Notifications ........................................... Yes § 63.9(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.9(b)(4)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... Yes § 63.9(c)–(j) .................. ......................................................................... Yes § 63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping and Reporting-Requirements Yes § 63.10(b)(1) ................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Yes § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. No

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............ Recordkeeping of Malfunctions ...................... No ............................... See § 63.886 forrecordkeeping of occurrence

and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........... Maintenance Records ..................................... Yes § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ..... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During
SSM. No

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........... Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions ............ Yes § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .. Other CMS Requirements .............................. Yes § 63.10(b)(3) ................ Recordkeeping Requirement for Applicability

Determinations. Yes

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for
Sources with CMS. Yes

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements forCMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions. Yes

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... ......................................................................... No ............................ ... See § 63.886 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. § 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ...... ......................................................................... Yes § 63.10(c)(15) .............. Use of SSM Plan ............................................ No § 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... General Reporting Requirements ................... Yes § 63.10(d)(5) ................ SSM Reports ................................................... No ............................... See § 63.886(c)(2) for reporting of malfunctions.


### 45329 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### NN OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### NN—Continued

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation

§ 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ CMS Performance Reports COMS Data Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver. Yes

§ 63.11(a)–(b) .............. Control Device Requirements Applicability

Flares. No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the

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

§ 63.11(d) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Yes § 63.11(e) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Requirements ........ Yes § 63.12 ......................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Yes § 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes § 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Yes § 63.15 ......................... Information Availability/Confidentiality ............ Yes § 63.16 ......................... Performance Track Provisions ........................ Yes

**Subpart DDD—National Emission**

**Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants**

**for Mineral Wool Production**

■ 3. Section 63.1178 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to read

as follows: **§ 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards**
**must I meet?**

(a) You must control emissions from each cupola as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

(b) * * * (3) Additionally, on or after the applicable compliance date for each new or reconstructed cupola, you must
either:

(i) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that the average operating temperature for each threehour block period never falls below the average temperature established during the performance test, or

(ii) Maintain the percent excess oxygen in the cupola at or above the level established during the performance test. You must determine the percent excess oxygen using the following equation:

Where: Percent excess oxygen = Percentage of excess oxygen present above the stoichiometric balance of 1.00, (%). 1.00 = Ratio of oxygen in a cupola combustion chamber divided by the stoichiometric quantity of oxygen required to obtain complete combustion
of fuel. Oxygen available = Quantity of oxygen introduced into the cupola combustion

zone. Fuel demand for oxygen = Required quantity of oxygen for stoichiometric combustion of the quantity of fuel present.

■ 4. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading, paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) introductory text
to read as follows:

**§ 63.1179 For curing ovens or combined collection/curing operations, what** 

**standards must I meet?**

(a) You must control emissions from each curing oven or combined collection/curing operations as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each curing oven or combined collection/curing operation:

* * * * * ■ 5. Section 63.1180 is revised to read
as follows:

**§ 63.1180 When must I meet these**

**standards?**

(a) Cupolas and curing ovens or combined collection/curing operations. You must comply with the emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart no later than the dates specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

(b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

■ 6. Section 63.1182 is amended by revising the section heading, the introductory text, and paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen**  **fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards for existing, new, and reconstructed**  **cupolas?**

To comply with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards, you must meet the following:

(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that continuously measures the operating temperature in
the firebox of each thermal incinerator.

(b) Conduct a performance test as specified in § 63.1188 that shows compliance with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, while the device for measuring incinerator operating temperature is installed, operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating temperature based on the performance test as specified in § 63.1185(a).

* * * * *


### 45330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

■ 7. Section 63.1183 is amended by revising the section heading, the introductory text, and paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol**  **standards for existing, new, and reconstructed combined collection/curing**  **operations?**

To comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol standards, you must meet all of the following:

* * * * *

(b) Conduct a performance test as specified in § 63.1188 while manufacturing the product that requires
a binder formulation made with theresin containing the highest freeformaldehyde content specification range. Show compliance with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits, specified in Table 2 to this subpart, while the device for measuring the control device operating parameter is installed, operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating parameter based on the performance test as specified in § 63.1185(a).

* * * * *

(d) Following the performance test,
monitor and record the freeformaldehyde content of each resin lot
and the formulation of each batch of binder used, including the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol

content.

* * * * *

■ 8. Section 63.1188 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet?** 

* * * * *

(b) Conduct a performance test, consisting of three test runs, for each cupola and curing oven or combined collection/curing operation subject to this subpart at the maximum production rate to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

(c) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be conducted within 180 days of the effective date of this rule, you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, at least once every 5 years.

(d) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions of PM, carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride from each existing, new, or reconstructed cupola. (e) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from each existing, new, or reconstructed curing oven or combined collection/curing operation.

(f) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure
emissions at the outlet of the control device for PM, carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol.

* * * * *

■ 9. Section 63.1189 is amended by revising paragraph (g) and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1189 What test methods do I use?**

* * * * *

(g) Method 318 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to this part for the concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, and carbonyl sulfide.

* * * * *

(i) Method 26A or 320 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to this part for the concentration of hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride.

■ 10. Section 63.1190 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and the definition of ‘‘MW,’’ and by removing paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

**§ 63.1190 How do I determine compliance?**

* * * * *

(b) Using the results from the performance tests, you must use the following equation to determine compliance with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol numerical emissions limits as specified in Table 2 to this subpart:

* * * * *

MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole: Carbon monoxide = 28.01, carbonyl sulfide = 60.07, hydrogen fluoride = 20.01, hydrogen chloride = 36.46, Formaldehyde = 30.03, Phenol = 94.11, Methanol = 32.04.

* * * * *

■ 11. Section 63.1191 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

**§ 63.1191 What notifications must I**

**submit?**

You must submit written or electronic
notifications to the Administrator as required by § 63.9(b) through (h). Electronic notifications are encouraged when possible. These notifications include, but are not limited to, the following:

* * * * *

■ 12. Section 63.1192 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

**§ 63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?** 

* * * * *

(d) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10
of the General Provisions that are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. Electronic recordkeeping is encouraged.

* * * * *

■ 13. Section 63.1193 is amended by revising paragraph (a), removing and reserving paragraph (b), and adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1193 What reports must I submit?**

* * * * *

(a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/
index.html), you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http:// cdx.epa.gov/epa

_home.asp ).
Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test data in an
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the performance test information being
submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use
of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404–


### 45331 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same ERT or alternate file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted
to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13.

(b) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(g) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section must be
sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (a) of this section in paper format.

■ 14. Section 63.1196 is amended by:

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ‘‘Closed-top cupola’’, ‘‘Combined collection/curing operations’’, ‘‘Open-top cupola’’, and ‘‘Slag’’; and

■ b. Revising the definition of
‘‘Incinerator’’ and ‘‘New Source’’.

The additions and revision read as
follows:

**§ 63.1196 What definitions should I be**

**aware of?**

* * * * * Closed-top cupola means a cupola that operates as a closed (process) system and has a restricted air flow rate.

* * * * *

Combined collection/curing operations means the combination of fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make bonded products.

* * * * *

Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that uses
controlled flame combustion to convert
combustible materials to noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’.

* * * * *

New Source means any affected
source that commences construction or reconstruction after May 8, 1997 for purposes of determining the applicability of the emissions limits in
Rows 1–4 of Table 2. For all other emission limits new source means any
affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after November 25, 2011.

* * * * *

Open-top cupola means a cupola that is open to the outside air and operates
with an air flow rate that is unrestricted and at low pressure.

* * * * *

Slag means the by-product materials separated from metals during smelting and refining of raw ore.

* * * * *

■ 15. Section 63.1197 is added to read
as follows: **§ 63.1197 Startups and shutdowns.** (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.

(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are utilized for compliance with this subpart during times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed to such items of equipment.

(c) Startup begins when fuels are ignited in the cupola. Startup ends when the cupola produces molten
material.

(d) Shutdown begins when the cupola has reached the end of the melting campaign and is empty. No molten
material continues to flow from the cupola during shutdown.

(e) During periods of startups and shutdowns you must operate your cupola according to one of the following
methods:

(1) You must keep records showing that your emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard;

or (2) You must keep records showing the following:

(i) You used only clean fuels during startup and shutdown; and

(ii) You operate the cupola during startup and shutdown with three percent oxygen over the fuel demand for

oxygen.

■ 16. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63
is revised to read as follows:



### TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### DDD OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### DDD

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(6) ............ General Applicability ....................................... Yes. § 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.1(b)(1) .................. Initial Applicability Determination .................... Yes. § 63.1(b)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ Applicability After Standard Established ......... Yes. § 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.2 ........................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes. § 63.3 ........................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Yes. § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ Prohibited Activities ......................................... Yes. § 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.5(a)(1)–(b)(2) ....... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... Yes. § 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.5(b)(5) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.5(b)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.5(c) ....................... ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.5(d)–(f) ................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.6(a)–(d) ................ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. No ............................... See § 63.1180(d) for general duty requirement.


### 45332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### DDD OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### DDD—Continued

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As
Soon As Possible. No ............................... § 63.1187(b) specifies additional requirements. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.6(e)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.6(e)(3) .................. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) Plan .. No ............................... Startups and shutdownsaddressed in § 63.1197. § 63.6(f)(1) ................... SSM Exemption .............................................. No. § 63.6(f)(2)–(g) ............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.6(h)(1) .................. SSM Exemption .............................................. No. § 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.7(a)–(d) ................ Performance Testing Requirements ............... Yes. § 63.7(e)(1) .................. Conduct of Performance Tests ....................... No ............................... See § 63.1180. § 63.7(e)(2)–(f) ............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.7(g)(1) .................. Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Yes. § 63.7(g)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.7(g)(3)–(h) ............ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.8(a)–(b) ................ Monitoring Requirements ................................ Yes. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. No ............................... See § 63.1180(e) for general duty requirement. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS No. § 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ........ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.8(d)(3) .................. Written Procedures for CMS ........................... Yes, except for lastsentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required.. § 63.8(e)–(g) ................ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.9(a) ....................... Applicability and General Information ............. Yes. § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ Initial Notifications ........................................... Yes. § 63.9(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.9(b)(4)–(b)(5) ....... ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.9(c)–(j) .................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes. § 63.10(b)(1) ................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. No.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............ Recordkeeping of Malfunctions ...................... No ............................... See § 63.1193(c) for recordkeeping of (ii) occurrence and duration and (iii) actions taken during malfunction. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........... Maintenance Records ..................................... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ..... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During
SSM. No.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........... Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions ............ Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .. Other CMS Requirements .............................. Yes. § 63.10(b)(3) ................ Recordkeeping Requirement for Applicability

Determinations. Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for
Sources with CMS. Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements forCMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions. Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... ......................................................................... No ............................ ... See § 63.1192 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. § 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ...... ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.10(c)(15) .............. Use of SSM Plan ............................................ No. § 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... General Reporting Requirements ................... Yes. § 63.10(d)(5) ................ SSM Reports ................................................... No ............................... See § 63.1193(f) for reporting of malfunctions. § 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ CMS Performance Reports COMS Data Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver. Yes.

§ 63.11(a)–(b) .............. Control Device Requirements Applicability

Flares. No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the

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

§ 63.11(d) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Yes. § 63.11(e) ..................... ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.12 ......................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Yes. § 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes.


### 45333 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### DDD OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### DDD—Continued

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation

§ 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Yes. § 63.15 ......................... Information Availability/Confidentiality ............ Yes. § 63.16 ......................... Performance Track Provisions ........................ Yes.

■ 17. Subpart DDD is amended by adding Table 2 to read as follows:



### TABLE 

### 2 TO 

### S UBPART 

### DDD OF 

### P ART 

### 63—E MISSIONS 

### L IMITS AND 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### D ATES

If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply by: 2

1. Cupola ............................................. On or before May 8, 1997 ................... 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt .................. June 2, 2002. 2. Cupola ............................................. After May 8, 1997 ................................ 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt .................. June 1, 1999. 3. Cupola ............................................. On or before May 8, 1997 ................... a. 0.10 lb carbon monoxide (CO ) per ton of melt, 3 or b. Reduction of uncontrolled CO by at

least 99 percent 3

. June 2, 2002.

4. Cupola ............................................. After May 8, 1997 but on or before November 25, 2011. a. 0.10 lb CO per ton of melt, 3 or b. Reduction of uncontrolled CO by at

least 99 percent. 3 June 1, 1999.

5. Closed-top cupola ............................ On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 3.4 lb of carbonyl sulfide (COS) per
ton melt. July 30, 2018.

6. Closed-top cupola ............................ After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.062 lb of COS per ton melt .............. July 29, 2015. 4 7. Open-top cupola .............................. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt .................. July 30, 2018. 8. Open-top cupola .............................. After November 25, 2011 .................... 3.2 lb of COS per ton melt .................. July 29, 2015. 4 9. Cupola using slag as a raw material On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.16 lb of hydrogen fluoride (HF) per
ton melt. 0.44 lb of hydrogen chloride (HCl) per

ton melt. July 30, 2018.

10. Cupola using slag as a raw material. After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.015 lb of HF per ton melt ................. 0.012 lb of HCl per ton melt. July 29, 2015. 4

11. Cupola not using slag as a raw

material. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.13 lb of HF per ton melt ................... 0.43 lb of HCl per ton melt. July 30, 2018.

12. Cupola not using slag as a raw

material. After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.018 lb of HF per ton melt ................. 0.015 lb of HCl per ton melt. July 29, 2015. 4

17. Curing oven ................................... On or before May 8, 1997 ................... a. 0.06 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt, 3 orb. Reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde by at least 80 percent. 3 June 2, 2002.

18. Curing oven ................................... After May 8, 1997 but before November 25, 2011. a. 0.06 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt, 3 orb. Reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde by at least 80 percent. 3 June 1, 1999.

19. Combined drum collection/curing

operation. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton of
melt. 0.28 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.85 lb of phenol per ton melt. July 30, 2018.

20. Combined drum collection/curing

operation. After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton of
melt. 0.28 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.85 lb of phenol per ton melt. July 29, 2015. 4

21. Combined horizontal collection/

curing operation. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.63 lb of formaldehyde per ton of
melt. 0.049 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.12 lb of phenol per ton melt. July 30, 2018.

22. Combined horizontal collection/

curing operation. After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.63 lb of formaldehyde per ton of
melt. 0.049 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.12 lb of phenol per ton melt. July 29, 2015. 4

23. Combined vertical collection/curing

operation. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 2.4 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt .... 0.92 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.71 lb of phenol per ton melt. July 30, 2018.

24. Combined vertical collection/curing

operation. After November 25, 2011 .................... 2.4 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt .... 0.92 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.71 lb of phenol per ton melt. July 29, 2015. 4

1 The numeric emissions limits do not apply during startup and shutdown.

2 Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance.

3 This emissions limit does not apply after July 30, 2018.

4 Or upon initial startup, whichever is later.


### 45334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

**§ 63.1380 Applicability.**

* * * * *

(b) * * * (3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded product.

* * * * *

■ 19. Section 63.1381 is amended by:

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ‘‘Gas-fired glass-melting furnace’’; and

■ b. Revising the definitions of
‘‘Incinerator’’ and ‘‘New source’’.

The addition and revisions read as
follows:

**§ 63.1381 Definitions.**

* * * * *

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is notconsidered part of the gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric furnaces as defined in this subpart are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.

* * * * *

Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that uses
controlled flame combustion to convert
combustible materials to noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’.

* * * * *

New source means any affected source
that commences construction or reconstruction after March 31, 1997 for purposes of determining the applicability of the emission limits in rows 1, 2 and 7 through 11 in Table 2. New source means any affected source
that commences construction or reconstruction after November 25, 2011 for purposes of determining the applicability of all other emissions
limits.

* * * * *

■ 20. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and adding new pargraph (b) and paragraph (c)(11) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1382 Emission standards.**

(a) You must control emissions from each glass-melting furnace, rotary spin manufacturing line, and flame attenuation manufacturing line as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

(b) On or after July 29, 2015 to reduce emissions of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride from each existing, new, or reconstructed glass-melting furnace, you must either:

(1) Require cullet providers to provide records of their inspections showing that no glass from industrial (also known as continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, cathode ray tubes (CRT), computer monitors that include CRT, and glass from microwave ovens,
televisions or other electronics is included in the cullet; or

(2) Sample your raw materials and maintain records of your sampling showing that the cullet is free of glass from industrial fiberglass, cathode ray tubes, computer monitors that include cathode ray tubes, and glass from microwave ovens, televisions or other
electronics.

(c) * * * (11) The owner or operator must maintain the percentage of cullet in thematerials mix for each gas-fired glassmelting furnace at or below the level established during the performance test as specified in § 63.1384(a)(4).

■ 21. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (m) to read
as follows:

**§ 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.**

* * * * *

(f) If you use a control device tocontrol HAP emissions from a glassmelting furnace, RS manufacturing line, or FA manufacturing line, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures an appropriate parameter for
the control device. You must establish the value of that parameter during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

* * * * *

(m) For all control device and process operating parameters measured during the initial performance tests, including the materials mix used in the test, you may change the limits established during the initial performance tests if you conduct additional performance testing to verify that, at the new control device or process parameter levels, you comply with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart. You must conduct all additional performance tests according to the procedures in this part 63, subpart A and in § 63.1384.

■ 22. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) introductory text, and the definitions of ‘‘E’’, ‘‘C’’, and ‘‘MW’’, and adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1384 Performance test requirements.**

(a) * * * (4) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each existing and new gas-fired glass-melting furnace. During the performance test of each gas-fired glass-melting furnace, the owner or operator must measure and record the materials mix, including the percentages of raw materials and cullet, melted in the furnace during the performance test.

* * * * *

(c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde for RS manufacturing lines; formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for FA manufacturing lines; and chromium compounds for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, use the following equation:

* * * * * E = Emission rate of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, chromium compounds, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;
C = Measured volume fraction of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, chromium compounds, ppm; MW = Molecular weight of formaldehyde, 30.03 g/g-mol; molecular weight of phenol, 94.11 g/g-mol; molecular weight of methanol, 32.04 g/g-mol; molecular weight of chromium compounds tested in g/g-mol.

* * * * *

(d) Following the initial performance or compliance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct an annual performance test for chromium compoundsemissions from each gas-fired glassmelting furnace (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous compliance test).

(e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test to


### 45335 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits in § 63.1382 at least once every five

years.

■ 23. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), redesignating paragraph (a)(10) as paragraph (a)(13), and adding paragraphs (a)(10) through (12) to read
as follows:

**§ 63.1385 Test methods and procedures.**

(a) * * * (5) Method 5 or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) for the concentration of total PM. When using Method 5, each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). When using Method 29, each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 3 dscm. When measuring PM concentration using either Method 5 or 29, the probe and filter holder heating system must be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 120 ± 14 ° C (248 ± 25 ° F).

(6) For measuring the concentration of formaldehyde, use one of the following
test methods:

(i) Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra.

(ii) Method 316 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of sample volume.

* * * * *

(10) For measuring the concentration of phenol, use Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra.

(11) For measuring the concentration of methanol, use one of the following
test methods:

(i) Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra.

(ii) Method 308 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a
minimum of 2 hours.

(12) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) for the concentration of chromium compounds. Each test run must consist of a minimum sample
volume of 3 dscm.

* * * * *

■ 24. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4), removing and reserving paragraph (b), revising paragraph (c), and adding paragraphs (d)(2)(x) and (xi), (f) and (g)
to read as follows:

**§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.** 

(a) * * * (2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where the initial startup is before November 25, 2011.

(3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where the source is new
or has been reconstructed the initial startup is after November 25, 2011, and for which an application for approval of

construction or reconstruction is not required;

(4) Notification of intention to
construct a new affected source or reconstruct an affected source; of the
date construction or reconstruction commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the actual date of startup, where the initial startup of a new or
reconstructed source occurs after November 25, 2011, and for which an application for approval or construction or reconstruction is required (See § 63.9(b)(4) and (5));

* * * * *

(c) Records and reports for a failure to
meet a standard. (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet a standard,
record the number of failures since the prior notification of compliance status. For each failure record the date, time,
and duration of each failure.

(2) For each failure to meet a standard
record and retain a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.

(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.1382, including corrective actions to restore process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation.

(4) If an affected unit fails to meet a standard, report such events in the notification of compliance status required by § 63.1386(a)(7). Report the
number of failures to meet a standard since the prior notification. For each instance, report the date, time, and
duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the affected units or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.

(d) * * * (2) * * * (x) Records of your cullet sampling or records of inspections from cullet providers.

(xi) For each gas-fired glass-melting furnace that uses cullet, records of the daily average cullet percentage, and the 30-day rolling average percent cullet in the materials mix charged to the furnace. The initial daily average should be recorded on the compliance date and the first 30-day rolling average should be calculated 30 days after the compliance date.

* * * * *

(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required in this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/
index.html), you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http:// cdx.epa.gov/epa

_home.asp ).
Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test data in an
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the performance test information being
submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use
of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703.
The same ERT or alternate file with the
CBI omitted must be submitted to the
EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13.

(g) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraph (f) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If acceptable to
both the Administrator and the owner or


### 45336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

operator of a source, these reports may
be submitted on electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (f) of this section in paper
format.

■ 25. Section 63.1387 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

**§ 63.1387 Compliance dates.**

(a) Compliance dates. You must comply with the emissions limits by the dates specified in Table 2 to this subpart.

* * * * *

(c) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

■ 26. Section 63.1389 is added to read
as follows:

**§ 63.1389 Startups and shutdowns.**

(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.

(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed to such items of equipment.

(c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace has any
raw materials added and reaches 50 percent of its typical operating temperature. Startup ends when molten glass begins to flow from the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace. For cold-top electric furnaces, startup ends
when the batch cover is established and the temperature of the glass batch-cover
surface is below 300 ° F.

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the glass-melting furnace.

(e) During periods of startup and shutdown in a cold-top furnace that is routed to a baghouse during normal operation, you must establish the batch cover and operate your furnace according to the following requirements during startup and shutdown:

(1) You must keep records showing that you used only natural gas or other clean fuels to heat each furnace; and

(2) Except after batch cover is established, you must keep records showing that you used only cullet as a raw material during the startup of each cold-top furnace; and (3) Once a batch cover is established and a control device can be safely operated, you must keep records showing that furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.

(4) During periods of shutdown in a cold-top furnace, until the conditions above the glass reach a point at which the control device may be damaged if it continues to operate, you must keep records showing furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.

(f) During both periods of startups and shutdowns for all furnace types other than cold-top furnaces, you must operate each furnace according to the following requirements:

(1) You must record the type of fuel used to heat the furnace during startup and shutdown to demonstrate that you used only natural gas or other clean fuels; and

(2) You must keep records showing
that furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.

■ 27. Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63
is revised to read as follows:



### TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### NNN OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### NNN

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(5) ............ Applicability ..................................................... Yes. § 63.1(a)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.1(b)(1) .................. Initial Applicability Determination .................... Yes. § 63.1(b)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.2 ........................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes. § 63.3 ........................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Yes. § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ Prohibited Activities ......................................... Yes. § 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.4(b)–(c) ................ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.5(a)–(b)(2) ............ Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... Yes. § 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.5(b)(5) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.5(b)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.5(c) ....................... ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.5(d) ....................... Application for Approval of Construction or

Reconstruction. Yes.

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


### 45337 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### NNN OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### NNN—Continued

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation

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

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. No ............................... See § 63.1382(b) for general duty requirement. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As
Soon As Possible. No ............................... § 63.1382(b) specifies additional requirements. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.6(e)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.6(e)(3) .................. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) Plan .. No ............................... Startups and shutdownsaddressed in § 63.1388. § 63.6(f)(1) ................... SSM Exemption .............................................. No. § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............. Methods for Determining Compliance ............ Yes. § 63.6(g) ....................... Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission
Standard. Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(1) .................. SSM Exemption .............................................. No. § 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.7(a)–(d) ................ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.7(e)(1) .................. Performance Testing ....................................... No ............................... See § 63 .1382(b). § 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ....... ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.7(f) ........................ Alternative Test Method .................................. Yes. § 63.7(g)(1) .................. Data Analysis .................................................. Yes. § 63.7(g)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.7(g)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.7(h) ....................... Waiver of Performance Test ........................... Yes. § 63.8(a)–(b) ................ Monitoring Requirements ................................ Yes. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. No ............................... See § 63.1382(c) for general duty requirement. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS No. § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ............ Quality Control Program ................................. Yes. § 63.8(d)(3) .................. Written Procedures for CMS ........................... Yes, except for lastsentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required. § 63.8(e)–(g) ................ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.9(a) ....................... Notification Requirements ............................... Yes. § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ Initial Notifications ........................................... Yes. § 63.9(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.9(b)(4)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes. § 63.10(b)(1) ................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............. Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. No.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............ Recordkeeping of Malfunctions ...................... No ............................... See § 63.1386 (c )(1) through (3) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration and actions taken during a failure to meet a

standard. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........... Maintenance Records ..................................... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ..... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During
SSM. No.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........... Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions ............ Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .. Other CMS Requirements .............................. Yes. § 63.10(b)(3) ................ Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability

Determinations. Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for
Sources with CMS. Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements forCMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions. Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. § 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... ......................................................................... No ............................ ... See § 63.1386 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. § 63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) .. ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.10(c)(15) .............. Use of SSM Plan ............................................ No. § 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... General Reporting Requirements ................... Yes. § 63.10(d)(5) ................ SSM Reports ................................................... No ............................... See § 63.1386(c)(iii) for reporting of malfunctions.


### 45338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 

### 1 TO 

### S UBPART 

### NNN OF 

### P ART 

### 63—A PPLICABILITY OF 

### G ENERAL 

### P ROVISIONS 

### (40 CFR P ART 

### 63, S UBPART 

### A) TO 

### S UBPART 

### NNN—Continued

General provisions
citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation

§ 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ CMS Performance Reports COMS Data Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver. Yes.

§ 63.11(a)–(b) .............. Control Device Requirements Applicability

Flares. No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the

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

§ 63.11(d) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Yes. § 63.11(e) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Requirements ........ Yes. § 63.12 ......................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Yes. § 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes. § 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Yes. § 63.15 ......................... Availability of Information/Confidentiality ........ Yes. § 63.16 ......................... Performance Track Provisions ........................ Yes.

■ 28. Subpart NNN is amended by adding Table 2 to read as follows:



### TABLE 

### 2 TO 

### S UBPART 

### NNN OF 

### P ART 

### 63—E MISSIONS 

### L IMITS AND 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### D ATES

If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply by: 2

1. Glass-melting furnace ...................... On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 0.5 lb PM per ton of glass pulled 3 ...... June 14, 2002. 2. Glass-melting furnace ...................... After March 31, 1997 but on or before November 25, 2011. 0.5 lb PM per ton of glass pulled 3 ...... June 14, 1999.

3. Glass-melting furnace ...................... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.33 lb PM per ton of glass pulled ...... July 31, 2017. 4. Glass-melting furnace ...................... After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.33 lb PM per ton of glass pulled ...... July 29, 2015. 4 5. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace ...... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.00025 lb chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled. July 31, 2017.

6. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace ...... After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.00025 lb chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled. July 29, 2015. 4

7. Rotary spin manufacturing line ........ On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 1.2 lb Formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled. June 14, 2002.

8. Rotary spin manufacturing line ........ After March 31, 1997 .......................... 0.8 lb Formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled. June 14, 1999.

9. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a heavy-density product. After March 31, 1997 but on or before November 25, 2011. 7.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 3

. June 14, 1999.

10. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product. On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 3

. June 14, 2002.

11. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product. After March 31, 1997 but before November 25, 2011. 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 3

. June 14, 1999.

12. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing any product. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 1.4 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled .. 5.6 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass

pulled. 0.50 lb methanol per ton of glass

pulled. July 31, 2017.

13. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing any product. After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.44 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled 2.6 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass

pulled. 0.35 lb methanol per ton of glass

pulled. July 29, 2015. 4

1 The numeric limits do not apply during startup and shutdown.

2 Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance.

3 This limit does not apply after July 31, 2017.

4 Or initial startup, whichever is later.

[FR Doc. 2015–16643 Filed 7–28–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**