# NAIMA

NORTH AMERICAN INSULATIQN MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
VIAE-MAILAND OVERNIGHTMAIL April 19, 2013

Ms. SusanFairchild SectorPolicies and Programs Division Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02) Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 4930 OldPage Road Durham, NC 27703
RE: Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

- Applicability
Dear Ms. Fairchild:
I am writing in regard to the discussion in the recent Supplemental Proposal that appears to attempt to redefine the applicability ofthe Wool Fiberglass MACT Standard. The applicability section ofany Federal or state regulatory requirement is arguably the most important provision ofa statute or regulation. The applicabilityprovisions identifythe entities orprocesses thatmust comply. Given the fact that non-compliance typically results in hefty fines and penalties, it is imperativethatthe applicability sectionofany statute orregulationbe clear andunambiguous.
The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association ("NAlMA") writes this letter with serious concern over the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed "National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for GasFired Melting Furnaces Located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources" (hereinafter the "Proposal") and its seemingly intentional confusion ofthe applicability ofemission standards intheWool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category.
Since 1999, the Wool Fiberglass ManufacturingMACT Standardhas been applicable only to the manufacture ofproducts bonded with phenol-formaldehyde binder. This logical limitation on applicability was the intention ofNAIMA and its members and EPA. The author ofthis letter and other NAIMA member company personnel currently engaged in dialogue with EPA on the Proposal were also involved inthe discussions leading to the 1999 requirements. Atthat time, it was the consensus and intention ofboth EPA and industry to impose this and other limitations. That NAIMA's interpretation and recollection is correct receives further substantiation from EPA itself. In the 2011 Proposed Rule, "National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

...," EPA states "RS and FA manufacturing lines that produce nonbonded products (in which no phenol-formaldehyde binder is applied) are not subject to the current standards." 76 Fed. Reg. 72,770, 72,776 (November 25, 2011). This fact is important because EPA, in 

# l \

44 CANAL CENTER PLAZA • SUITE 310 • ALEXANDRIA. VA 22314 • TEL 703/684-0084 • FAX 703/684-0427Ms. SusanFairchild April 19, 2013 Page 2

footnote 3 

### (see 78 Fed. Reg. at 22374), makes much of"EPA's intent." In finalizing the Rule in 1999, EPA's intentto limit applicability was well known and is reflected inthe plain language of the Regulation. 1 In fact, it would have been illogical to regulate unbonded lines when formaldehyde was the only hazardous air pollutant to be regulated, and these products did not utilizeformaldehyde intheirproductionprocesses. EPA's intent is further documented in a2002 EPA Applicability Determination, which expressly states a facility is not a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility unless phenol-formaldehyde binder is used. Alushin, Michael, "Binder Switch from Formaldehyde to Acrylic," U.S. EPA Applicability Determination Index Control No. M040014 (Aug. 1,2002)(hereinafter "theApplicabilityDetermination"). Upon review of the current Proposal's amendments 

### (see 78 Fed. Reg. at 22401), the only amendment to §63.1380 is a modification for flame attenuation lines. The common sense conclusion would be that there were no amendments to the other applicability provisions. Indeed, ifEPA intended to amend the applicability section, this is where such an amendment should be reflected and recorded to prevent confusion or uncertainty with respect to one ofthe most essential sections of any regulatory framework. Even in this discussion, EPA notes its purpose is to end the subcategorization for flame attenuation lines. This could be accomplished by revising the applicability language for flame attenuation lines to "Each new and existing flame attenuation line producing pipe or heavy density insulation" and presenting an emission standard for new flame attenuation lines and one for existing lines, at the values proposed in 2011. NAIMA urges EPA to forego any other amendment to the applicability provisions, including other amendments to flame attenuation lines. The effect of EPA's change to the applicability language increases applicability beyond the pipe and heavy density products that have beenregulated and are separately subcategorized. Despite this clearregulatoryhistory and the unambiguous language inthe currentregulation, in a passing reference and a footnote, the Agency suggests it never intended to "exempt any major sources orincentivize such sources to avoid MACT coverage byproducing non-bondedproducts

..." This statement is incorrect, which is best demonstrated by the simple fact that the companies operating these furnaces and manufacturing lines associated with the unbonded products have not operated unbonded lines under a MACT Standard since the Standard was published on June 14, 1999. This was done with the full knowledge ofEPA that the unbonded lines and products were never intended to be included in the MACT Standard, now some 12 years old. This is further confirmedbytheApplicabilityDeterminationEPA made in 2002. While EPA's current Proposed Rule does not amend the applicability provisions for rotary spin

­ that is it keeps in place the fact that the MACT Standard does not apply to unbonded lines and furnaces

- there is some ambiguity and confusion in the footnote where it references "EPA's intent." "EPA's intent," as referenced inthe aforementioned footnote, is best determined by the

1 "Subpart NNN

... § 63.1380

... (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as measured according to the methods and procedures in this subpart, emitted from the following new and existing sources at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility subject to this subpart: (1) Each new and existing glass-melting furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility; (2) Each new and existing rotary spinwool fiberglass manufacturing lineproducing abonded wool fiberglass building insulationproduct."Ms. SusanFairchild April 19, 2013 Page 3
plain language ofthe Regulation, the established precedent and practice of how the MACT Standard has been interpreted and enforced by EPA, and the compliance history ofthe industry. EPA's comment, iftaken literally, could extend applicability to a glass furnace not even part of the Wool Fiberglass Category merely because it happens to be co-located at a facility making wool fiber glass. Surelythatis notEPA's intent.
Moreover the footnote (see 78 Fed. Reg. at 22374) references EPA's own language without any footnote orcitation. The source andoriginofthis citedlanguageis undisclosed andcannot, as of yet, befound intheEPADocket.
NAIMA strongly objects to the confusion EPA has caused by indirectly raising questions about the application ofthis Ruleto unbonded lines or furnaces outside the Wool Fiberglass Category. Ambiguity has no place in applicability provisions. As such, NAIMA requests that EPA eliminate the ambiguity. Specifically, NAIMA asks that EPA state plainly and for the record thatthe Agency is not changing, amending, ormodifying the applicability section, otherthanthe limited changes to flame attenuation, for which NAIMA urges EPA to adopt the approach suggested above. IfEPA seeks to amend the applicability section, NAIMA requests that the Agency follow established administrative law procedures for notice and comment rulemaking andpropose an amendmentthat is subjectto public comment. Itis improper andunacceptableto revise the applicability provision by simply referencing "EPA's intent" when that purported intent has no support in the plain language ofthe Regulation, in EPA's historical interpretation andregulatoryprecedent, orenforcementhistory.
There should be no questions or uncertainties when it comes to the applicability of an EPA emission standard. Sincerely,

# hZe-~ Angus E. Crane ExecutiveVicePresident, General Counsel

cc: Mr. Keith W. Barnett Group Leader, Office ofAir Quality andPlanning Standards SectorPolicies andProgramsDivision, Mineral andManufacturing Group U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 4930 OldPageRoad Durham, NC 27703