CONTROL OF NOx EMISSIONS FROM 

GLASS MELTING FURNACES 

25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129 

38 Pa.B.1831 (April 19, 2008) 

Environmental Quality Board Regulation #7-420 

(Independent Regulatory Review Commission #2683)

Comment/Response Document 
Public Comment/Response Document 

Control of NOx Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces 

On April 19, 2008, the Environmental Quality Board (Board, EQB) published a notice of public 

hearings and comment period on a proposed rulemaking concerning revisions to 25 Pa. Code

Chapters 121 and 129 to control the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from glass melting 

furnaces during the ozone season (38 Pa. B. 1831). The public comment period closed on June 

23, 2008. 

Three public hearings were held on the proposed rulemaking as follows: 

May 19, 2008 Department of Environmental Protection 

2:00 p.m. Rachel Carson State Office Building 

 Room 105 

 400 Market Street 

 Harrisburg, PA 17105 

May 21, 2008 Department of Environmental Protection 

2:00 p.m. Northeast Regional Office 

 Susquehanna Room A, Second Floor 

 2 Public Square 

 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 

May 23, 2008 Department of Environmental Protection 

2:00 p.m. Southwest Regional Office 

 Waterfront A & B Conference Room 

 400 Waterfront Drive 

 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

This document summarizes the testimony received during the public hearings and the written 

comments received from the public during the public comment period. Each public comment is 

listed with an identifying number for each commentator that made the comment. A list of the 

commentators, including name, affiliation (if any), and location, can be found at the beginning of 

this document. The Board invited each commentator to prepare a one-page summary of the 

commentator’s comments. One one-page summary was submitted to the Board for this 

rulemaking. If adopted by the Board, the final regulation will be submitted to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

2
Public Comment/Response Document 

Table of Commentators to the Environmental Quality Board

Control of NOx Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces 

Rulemaking # 7-420

(IRRC # 2683)

ID Name/Address One-Page 

Summary 

Submitted 

for 

Distribution 

to EQB 

Provided 

Testimony 

Requested 

Copy of 

Final 

Rulemaking 

after EQB 

Action 

1. James M. Rowlett, CSP 

Manager, Environmental, Safety, and Health 

World Kitchen, LLC 

Charleroi, PA 

√

2. John W. Carroll 

Harrisburg, PA 

<<representing Saint-Gobain Containers>> 

Muncie, IN 

√

3. Steven F. Faeth 

Senior Counsel EHS 

PPG Industries, Inc. 

Pittsburgh, PA 

√

4. Andrew L. Harris, P.E. 

Corporate Environmental Manager 

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation 

Port Allegheny, PA 

√

5. Thomas J. McDonald 

Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety 

SCHOTT North America, Inc. 

Duryea, PA 

6. Angus E. Crane 

Vice President, General Counsel 

NAIMA (North American Insulation 

Manufacturers Association) 

Alexandria, VA 

7. Senator Mary Jo White 

Chairperson 

Senate Environmental Resources and Energy 

Committee 

Harrisburg, PA 

3
Public Comment/Response Document 

8. Senator Raphael J. Musto 

Democratic Chairman 

Senate Environmental Resources and Energy 

Committee 

Harrisburg, PA 

9. Independent Regulatory Review Commission 

Harrisburg, PA 

10. Representative Scott E. Hutchinson 

Republican Chairman 

House Environmental Resources and Energy 

Committee 

Harrisburg, PA 

4
Public Comment/Response Document 

General Support

1. Comment: The commentator supports and strongly urges the adoption of the NOx emission 

limits for fiberglass plants consistent with the 4.0 pounds of NOx per ton of glass pulled (lbs 

NOx/ton glass pulled) adopted by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). (6) 

Response: The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) appreciates the 

commentator’s support of the proposed rulemaking for fiberglass plants. 

2. Comment: The commentator stated that the emission limit for fiberglass plants in the 

proposed rule can be achieved by currently available technologies, and the emission limit is a 

technologically feasible and pragmatic approach requiring implementation of low-NOx 

combustion technology. (6) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator that the emission limit for fiberglass 

furnaces can be achieved with technologies currently available. 

3. Comment: The commentator stated that the OTC-recommended emission limit of 4.0 lbs 

NOx/ton glass pulled for fiberglass plants achieves consistency and uniformity with the standard 

that the 13 members of the OTC effectively adopted in November 2006, and urges Pennsylvania 

to recognize the prudence and wisdom of a uniform standard throughout the various states 

because this provides the fiberglass industry with a predictable and manageable regulatory 

scheme. (6) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator that proposing the OTC-recommended 

emission limit of 4.0 lbs NOx/ton glass for fiberglass plants achieves consistency and uniformity 

among the 13 members (12 states and the District of Columbia) of the OTC. 

Proposed NOx Emission Limits

4. Comment: The commentator stated that it is arbitrary to base the proposed rule’s allowable 

emission requirements on a California rule without an explanation as to why they are suitable to 

Pennsylvania. (4) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator that the rule’s allowable NOx 

emission limit requirements are arbitrary. The Department proposed the allowable NOx 

emission requirements as a result of the research conducted by, and the recommendations of, the 

Northeast OTC. The Northeast OTC is a multi-state organization created under Section 184 of 

the Federal CAA. 42 U.S.C.A. § 7511c. The OTC is responsible for advising the EPA on 

ground-level ozone pollution transport issues and for developing and implementing regional 

solutions to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The 

members of the OTC (this Commonwealth, CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VA and 

VT, and the District of Columbia) are required to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard of 80 ppb throughout the OTR. See 62 FR 38855 (July 18, 1997). Furthermore, 

on March 12, 2008, the EPA issued a more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb that 

5
Public Comment/Response Document 

would require additional reductions of ozone precursor emissions, including NOx, that impact 

each OTR member’s nonattainment status. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). However, the 

EPA has reconsidered the 2008 ozone NAAQS and on January 19, 2010, published a proposed 

rulemaking to set a more protective 8-hour primary standard at a lower level within the range of 

0.060-0.070 ppm; the final revised ozone standard is expected in August 2010. See 75 FR 2938. 

If, as is widely expected, the EPA tightens the ozone standard, the additional NOx emissions 

from the final-form rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will be even more important than if 

the current 2008 ozone standard remains in place. In addition, the Northeast states are 

conducting attainment planning work to support development of PM2.5 and regional haze SIPs 

to satisfy obligations under the CAA and regulations issued under the CAA. See 74 FR 58688 

(November 13, 2009) and 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). 

The OTC undertook a study to identify a suite of additional control measures that could be used 

by the members in attaining their goals. Workgroups of staff from within the OTC members 

were established to evaluate control measures for specific sectors or issues. Department staff 

actively participated in these workgroups. Based on a review of 1,000 candidate control 

measures, the workgroups developed a short list of measures to be considered for more detailed 

analysis. The technical information for this short list of measures is found in the OTC report: 

Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures, Final Technical Support 

Document, prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., Herndon, VA, February 28, 2007. 

Control of NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces in the six states within the OTR that have 

glass melting furnaces (this Commonwealth, MA, MD, NJ, NY and RI) was on the short list as a 

measure for further analysis by the workgroups. The workgroups reviewed information on 

current NOx emissions from the furnaces, controls already in place on the furnaces, anticipated 

additional NOx emission reductions from the control measures, preliminary cost and costeffectiveness data, and other implementation issues. The workgroups discussed all the candidate 

control measures, including controlling NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces, during a 

series of conference calls and workshops to further refine the emission reduction estimates, the 

cost data and implementation issues. 

The workgroups also discussed comments from stakeholders, including glass melting furnace 

stakeholders (North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and Glass Association of 

North America). The OTC Commissioners summarized the glass melting furnace control 

measures and made a recommendation at the Commissioners’ meetings in 2006 that the affected 

member states consider NOx emission reductions from glass melting furnaces. The glass 

melting furnace stakeholders were provided multiple opportunities to review and comment on 

the glass melting furnace control measures summary. Public meetings were held as an 

opportunity for stakeholders to review and respond to the Commissioners’ recommendations, 

stakeholders provided written comments, and the workgroups conducted conference calls with 

specific stakeholders to allow the stakeholders to vocalize their concerns directly to state 

regulatory staff and to discuss the control options. The OTC staff and state workgroups carefully 

considered the verbal and written comments received during this process. 

The OTC’s control measures summary document for the glass melting furnaces located in this 

Commonwealth, MA, MD, NJ, NY and RI recommends the states “develop control strategies 

that recommend ‘oxyfiring’ for each furnace at the next furnace rebuild.” Alternatively, states 

6
Public Comment/Response Document 

may allow manufacturers to propose compliance methods based on California’s San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 4354 (relating to glass melting furnaces) 

which allows a “mix of control options to meet specified emission limits.” The NOx emission 

rates recommended in the OTC control measures summary document are the rates specified in 

the SJVAPCD Rule 4354. The Department reviewed, analyzed and concurred with the OTC’s 

control measures summary document for glass melting furnaces with respect to the individual 

glass melting furnaces located in this Commonwealth. Further, the Department determined that 

proposing a glass melting furnaces regulation based on the SJVAPCD Rule 4354 that 

incorporates a mix of control options to meet specified emission limits was the appropriate 

implementation strategy for a rulemaking to control NOx emissions from this Commonwealth’s 

glass melting furnaces. 

5. Comment: The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) requests that the 

Board provide a detailed explanation on the basis for the emission limits in the emission 

requirements section. (9) 

Response: Please see the response to comment number 4. 

6. Comment: The IRRC questioned whether imposing the proposed emission requirements in 

the absence of a Federal deadline will place this Commonwealth’s industry at a competitive 

disadvantage, and suggests the Board should review the situation carefully in conjunction with 

the OTC to take precautions to insure a level playing field in the industry. (9) 

Response: The Department proposed the allowable emission requirements as a result of the 

research conducted by and the recommendations of the OTC. The OTC is a multi-state 

organization created under Section 184 of the Federal CAA. 42 U.S.C.A. § 7511c. The OTC is 

responsible for advising the EPA on ground-level ozone transport issues and for developing and 

implementing regional solutions to the ground-level ozone transport problem in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic regions. The members of the OTC (this Commonwealth, CT, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VA and VT, and the District of Columbia) are required to demonstrate 

attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 62 FR 38855 (July 18, 1997). 

Furthermore, on March 12, 2008, the EPA issued a more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 75 

ppb that would require additional reductions of ozone precursor emissions, including NOx, that 

impact each OTR member’s nonattainment status. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

However, the EPA has reconsidered the 2008 ozone NAAQS and on January 19, 2010, published 

a proposed rulemaking to set a more protective 8-hour primary standard at a lower level within 

the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm; the final revised ozone standard is expected in August 2010. See 

75 FR 2938. If, as is widely expected, the EPA tightens the ozone standard, the additional NOx 

emissions from the final-form rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will be even more important 

than if the current 2008 ozone standard remains in place. 

Control of NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces in the six states within the OTR that have 

glass melting furnaces (this Commonwealth, MA, MD, NJ, NY and RI) was on the short list as a 

7
Public Comment/Response Document 

control measure for further analysis by the OTC.1 The OTC Commissioners summarized the 

glass melting furnaces control measures and made a recommendation at the Commissioners’ 

meetings in 2006 that the members consider NOx emission reductions from glass melting 

furnaces. This Commonwealth, along with the other affected OTC member states, agreed to 

establish NOx emission limits and controls for glass melting furnaces that are based on the 

SJVAPCD Rule 4354 so that there would be a level playing field among the surrounding OTC 

states. The owners and operators of glass melting furnaces in this Commonwealth remain 

competitive with those states not in the OTC with the option of an alternative compliance 

schedule contained in the petition process that is provided in subsections 129.304(b) and (c) 

(relating to emission requirements) of the final-form rulemaking. 

7. Comment: The commentator stated that the proposed rule does not include emission 

requirements for specialty glass manufacturing, and therefore the proposed rule does not apply to 

their glass melting furnace since it does not meet the applicability criteria defined in the 

proposed rule. (5) 

Response: The Department recognized that furnaces within this Commonwealth that produce a 

glass product other than the four types listed in the proposed rulemaking (flat, container, 

fiberglass or pressed and blown) were not adequately considered in the proposed rulemaking. As 

a result, the Department has added to § 129.304 in the final-form rulemaking an emission limit of 

6.0 lbs NOx/ton glass pulled for any other glass melting furnace that does not produce flat, 

container, fiberglass or pressed or blown glass products. The Department, in researching and 

analyzing these types of furnaces in this Commonwealth, considered the limit of 6.0 lbs NOx/ton 

glass pulled to be a reasonable limit based on the low NOx burner technology that is available to 

reduce uncontrolled NOx emissions by 30-35%. 

8. Comment: The proposed rule’s compliance determination section should express NOx in the 

same units as in the emission requirements section of the proposed rule (lbs/hr vs. lb NOx/ton 

glass). (3) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) equipment is not designed to sample and report a source’s processderived emissions data, for example, tons of glass pulled at a glass melting furnace. The CEMS 

equipment samples on the basis of a ‘parts per million’ emissions concentration, and then 

automatically calculates a ‘pounds per hour’ emissions concentration. When the monitoring data 

is submitted to the Department every quarter, as required under subsection 129.309(a) (relating 

to compliance demonstration), the submittal shall include the CEMS monitoring data in pounds 

per hour and the glass production data in tons of glass pulled per day for each furnace. 

 

1 Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures, Final Technical Support Document. Prepared for 

the Ozone Transport Commission, Washington DC, by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., Herndon, VA, February 

28, 2007. 

8
Public Comment/Response Document 

2009 Compliance Date

9. Comment: The commentator stated that the emission requirements compliance date of 

May 1, 2009, is unreasonable because there is less than a year until this deadline and the 

proposed rule is not yet final and may not be final before the end of 2008. (3) 

Response: The Department acknowledges that the proposed rulemaking’s compliance date of 

May 1, 2009, is no longer possible. The Department revised the final-form rulemaking to require 

compliance with the emission limits by January 1, 2012. The final-form rulemaking also 

provides a petition process to all glass melting furnace owners and operators under subsection 

129.304(b) for an alternative compliance schedule, if they will be unable to meet the NOx 

emission limits beginning January 1, 2012. 

10. Comment: The commentator stated that this regulation will likely require permitting of air 

pollution control equipment which reasonably cannot occur by May 1, 2009, and suggests that 

the regulation’s compliance deadline become effective upon the next furnace rebuild but no 

sooner than May 1, 2012. (3) 

Response: The Department revised the final-form rulemaking to require compliance with the 

emission limits by January 1, 2012. The final-form rulemaking also provides a petition process 

to all glass melting furnace owners and operators under subsection 129.304(b) for an alternative 

compliance schedule, if they will be unable to meet the emission limits beginning January 1, 

2012. 

11. Comment: The commentator stated that the NOx proposed rule creates an unreasonable 

timetable for compliance, and recommends postponing the compliance date until at least the 

2010 ozone season. (2) 

Response: Please see the response to comment number 10. 

12. Comment: The IRRC commented that the Board should review the practicality of the 2009 

compliance deadline, given the uncertainty of the future of the EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) allowance program, and questions if other compliance options will be available for 

providing flexibility to the affected industry. (9) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator. Subsequent to the closing of the 

public comment period on June 23, 2008, for the proposed rulemaking (38 Pa.B. 1831, April 19, 

2008), but prior to the vacatur of the EPA’s CAIR, the Department held discussions with the 

EPA regarding the proposed rulemaking’s option to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limits through the purchase of CAIR NOx allowances under the EPA’s CAIR regulation. During 

those discussions, the EPA indicated to the Department that a glass melting furnace regulation 

that would provide a compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances would be 

problematic as far as approvability by the EPA for the Commonwealth’s SIP, because glass 

melting furnaces are not specifically included in the EPA’s CAIR program as a source category 

able to purchase CAIR NOx allowances to achieve compliance. The EPA did not intend CAIR 

to comprise the entire solution to control NOx emissions from all types of sources, but only to 

9
Public Comment/Response Document 

address interstate transport of ozone and PM2.5 precursors from the electric generating unit 

(EGU) sector. Therefore, the Department deleted from the final-form regulation the compliance 

option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances. Because of this change, the Department has revised 

the final-form rulemaking to require compliance with the emission limits by January 1, 2012. 

13. Comment: The Senate and House Environmental Committees commented, during the 

Advance Notice of Final Rulemaking (ANFR) comment period (39 Pa.B. 5318, September 12, 

2009), that it may assist the Department as well as the regulated industry to not base the 

compliance timeframe on a specific date. The Committees commented that glass melting 

furnaces could potentially be required by the regulation to be replaced or upgraded prior to the 

end of their normal life expectancy, which would greatly increase the compliance costs of the 

regulation, if the regulation contains a specific compliance date. The Committees further 

commented that they understand several other states permit furnaces to be upgraded after their 

normal and anticipated life expectancy is exhausted. (7,8,10) 

Response: The final-form rulemaking provides a petition process to all glass melting furnace 

owners and operators under subsection 129.304(b) for an alternative compliance schedule, if they 

will be unable to meet the emission limits beginning January 1, 2012. The Department believes 

that a final compliance date specified in the regulation is necessary to ensure that the owners and 

operators of the glass melting furnaces in this Commonwealth limit the NOx emissions from 

their furnaces by a date certain, either by January 1, 2012, or by the date specified on a case-bycase basis as determined through the petition process for an alternative compliance schedule 

under subsection 129.304(c). Additionally, the SJVAPCD Rule 4354, whose NOx emission 

limits and compliance methods were recommended by the OTC control measures group, 

specifies a final compliance date. 

CAIR

14. Comment: A commentator stated that the proposed rule limits the purchase of allowances 

to CAIR NOx allowances, and should allow for the use of NOx credits previously banked as a 

result of prior emission reductions. (3) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The use of NOx credits previously 

banked due to prior emission reductions is clarified by the Department’s NOx Budget Trading 

Program under subsection 145.90(a) (relating to emission reduction credit provisions): “ERCs 

may not be used to satisfy NOx allowance requirements.” Additionally, as explained in the 

response to comment number 12, the Department removed from the final-form rulemaking the 

compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances. 

15. Comment: A commentator stated that the Department did not adequately address, while 

drafting and promulgating the proposed regulation and in accordance with Commonwealth 

Executive Order 1996-1, that when there are existing Federal regulations covering the subject 

matter as does the EPA’s CAIR regulation, that the State’s regulations cannot be more stringent 

than the Federal standards. The commentator stated further that the EPA promulgated CAIR for 

the control of NOx emissions at the Federal level, and the EPA focused the CAIR regulation on 

10
Public Comment/Response Document 

EGUs. Glass melting furnaces are not EGUs, thus under the EPA’s CAIR, specific regulation of 

glass manufacturing is notably absent. (4) 

Response: The purpose of the Department’s proposed glass melting furnaces rulemaking is to 

address reductions of NOx from glass melting furnaces, while the EPA’s CAIR addresses NOx 

reductions from EGUs, certain boilers, stationary combustion turbines and stationary internal 

combustion engines. Therefore, these are two different regulatory strategies with the goal of 

reducing NOx emissions from various source types within this Commonwealth. The EPA did 

not intend CAIR to comprise the entire solution to control NOx emissions from all types of 

sources, but only to address interstate transport of ozone and PM2.5 precursors. In fact, the EPA 

explicitly recognized that additional state regulation may be necessary in some areas, in 

combination with reduction of interstate transport, to attain and maintain the ozone and PM2.5 

NAAQS. 

Commonwealth Executive Order 1996-1 applies to the final-form rulemaking since there is not a 

companion Federal rule that reduces NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces. However, this 

proposed rulemaking is reasonably necessary to attain and maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The criteria for adopting state regulations more stringent than Federal regulations 

(when Federal regulations exist) are in the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), Section 4.2 (35 

P.S. § 4004.2). Section 4.2 of the APCA authorizes the Board to adopt regulations more 

stringent than Federal requirements when the control measures are reasonably necessary to attain 

and maintain the ambient air quality standards. 

Vacatur of the EPA’s CAIR

16. Comment: The IRRC questioned the Board’s statutory authority for the use of CAIR NOx 

allowances and revised NOx emission limits in the proposed regulation due to the fact that the 

EPA’s CAIR was vacated on July 11, 2008, by the D.C. Circuit Court. The IRRC goes on to say 

that the Court in its ruling stated that the analysis done by the EPA was “fundamentally flawed” 

and that the agency (EPA) must start its analysis anew. (9) 

Response: The decision by the D.C. Circuit Court in North Carolina v. EPA only addressed 

CAIR, and did not address NOx emission limits for glass melting furnaces. Subsequent to the 

closing of the public comment period on June 23, 2008 for the proposed rulemaking (38 Pa.B. 

1831, April 19, 2008), but prior to the vacatur of the EPA’s CAIR, the Department held 

discussions with the EPA regarding the proposed rulemaking’s option to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits through the purchase of CAIR NOx allowances under the 

EPA’s CAIR regulation. During those discussions, the EPA indicated to the Department that a 

final glass melting furnace regulation that would provide a compliance option to purchase CAIR 

NOx allowances would be problematic as far as approvability by the EPA for the 

Commonwealth’s SIP, because glass melting furnaces are not specifically included in the EPA’s 

CAIR program as a source category able to purchase CAIR NOx allowances to achieve 

compliance. The EPA did not intend CAIR to comprise the entire solution to control NOx 

emissions from all types of sources, but only to address interstate transport of ozone and PM2.5 

precursors from the EGU sector. The Court decided to remand, and not vacate, the EPA’s CAIR 

in December 2008. The final Federal rule, expected in 2011, must be revised to be consistent 

11
Public Comment/Response Document 

with the Court’s July 11, 2008, decision in State of North Carolina v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Department agrees that while the EPA’s CAIR 

remains in place at this time, the EPA will propose and finalize in the next two years a 

replacement for CAIR that meets the criteria set forth by the Court. In light of the pre-vacatur 

discussions with the EPA and the uncertainty about what a CAIR replacement will include, the 

Department removed from the final-form glass melting furnaces rulemaking the compliance 

option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances. Therefore, the provisions of the final-form 

rulemaking contain significant changes from the provisions of the proposed rulemaking. 

Additionally, a replacement for the EPA’s CAIR program could possibly include interstate 

trading. Because participating in both a trading program and the emissions averaging 

compliance option provided in the proposed rulemaking could potentially provide a loophole to 

the affected furnaces to avoid emissions reductions, glass melting furnaces for which the 

Department has granted approval to voluntarily participate in an interstate trading program will 

not be eligible for the emissions averaging option in the compliance demonstration under 

subsection 129.309(b) of the final-form rulemaking. 

17. Comment: The Senate Committee commented on the ability of the Board to move forward 

with the regulation if the D.C. Court vacated the CAIR budget and allowance system for NOx 

emissions in Pennsylvania and other states. Their concern is that on July 11, 2008, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned CAIR, and specifically that the Court 

found that the state NOx budgets as determined by the EPA were “arbitrary and capricious.” 

(7,8) 

Response: The decision by the D.C. Circuit Court in North Carolina v. EPA only addressed 

CAIR, and did not address NOx emission limits for glass melting furnaces. Please see the 

response to comment # 16. 

18. Comment: The IRRC stated that the Department should address the concerns raised by the 

Senate Committee on the CAIR vacatur, and suggested that if the regulation requires substantial 

changes, to consider submitting an Advance Notice of Final Rulemaking (ANFR) or publishing 

the changes as a new proposed regulation in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. (9) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator. The provisions of the final-form 

rulemaking contain significant changes from the provisions of the proposed rulemaking. 

Most importantly, during discussions with the EPA following the close of the Board’s public 

comment period for the proposed rulemaking, the EPA indicated to the Department that a 

final glass melting furnace regulation that provides a compliance option to purchase CAIR 

NOx allowances would be problematic as far as approvability by the EPA for the 

Comomnwealth’s SIP, because glass melting furnaces are not specifically included in the 

EPA’s CAIR program as a source category able to purchase allowances to achieve 

compliance. The EPA did not intend CAIR to comprise the entire solution to control NOx 

emissions from all types of sources, but only to address interstate transport of ozone and 

PM2.5 precursors from the EGU sector. Therefore, the Department removed from the finalform rulemaking the compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances. 

12
Public Comment/Response Document 

The Department further revised the final-form rulemaking to require compliance with the 

NOx emission limits year-round because NOx is not only a precursor to ozone formation, but 

is also a precursor to the formation of PM2.5, which is monitored year-round. In addition, the 

proposed rulemaking addressed control of NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces only 

during the period of May 1 to September 30 of each year, and it is anticipated that the EPA 

will extend the ozone monitoring season in this Commonwealth to go from March 1 to 

October 31, each year, requiring monitoring for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for a longer period 

each year. See 74 FR 34525 at p. 34538 (July 16, 2009). The Department also added a NOx 

emission limit applicable to a glass melting furnace that produces a glass product that is other 

than flat, container, fiberglass or pressed and blown. These changes are sufficiently 

significant that the Department believed further discussion and an additional comment period 

served the public interest. An Advance Notice of Final Rulemaking (ANFR) to solicit 

comments from the public on the draft final-form regulation was published in the 

Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 12, 2009 (39 Pa.B. 5318). 

System-Wide Averaging of NOx Emissions

19. Comment: The Senate Committee and the IRRC commented on the proposed provision to 

allow facilities under common ownership to trade NOx allowances for system-wide averaging of 

NOx emissions, while prohibiting the trading of NOx allowances to average NOx emissions 

between facilities not under common corporate ownership. The Senate Committee commented 

that they support the concept of NOx allowance trading, and would favor removing the 

requirement for being “under common control of the same owner or operator in this 

Commonwealth” from the system-wide averaging section of the rulemaking, and the IRRC 

commented that the Board should address this issue. (7,8,9) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the Senate Committee’s suggestion to remove the 

requirement for being “under common control of the same owner or operator in this 

Commonwealth” from the system-wide averaging option under the compliance demonstration 

section of the rulemaking. The option to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits by 

averaging the NOx emissions of several glass melting furnaces under the common control of the 

same owner or operator in this Commonwealth provides added flexibility to the glass companies 

in this Commonwealth with more than one facility. Allowing multiple owners and operators of 

glass melting furnaces in this Commonwealth to average their emissions in concert with each 

other in order to demonstrate compliance would essentially provide them the larger framework 

of an emissions trading program, which is beyond the scope of the final-form rulemaking 

provision to provide them with an emissions averaging option. 

Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS)

20. Comment: One commentator stated that the proposed rule’s requirement to install a NOx 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS or an alternate) does not impose a time requirement upon 

the Department for the review and approval of the monitoring system. (3) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator that the regulation should contain a 

time requirement. The owners or operators of glass melting furnaces who are planning to install, 

operate and maintain a CEMS or alternate monitoring system or method have been advised to 

13
Public Comment/Response Document 

contact their Department regional and central office contacts for specific information and 

guidance regarding the installation, review and approval requirements for any and all monitoring 

equipment. The timeframe to review and approve a monitoring system is coordinated with each 

individual company during the certification process of the monitoring system, in accordance with 

the Department’s Continuous Source Monitoring Manual (DEP 274-0300-001; 25 Pa. Code

Chapter 139, Subchapter C (relating to requirements for source monitoring for stationary 

sources)). These monitoring-specific issues are not part of individual rulemakings. 

21. Comment: Some commentators stated that the deadline of May 1, 2009, for the system to 

be installed and operational is unreasonable as there is less than a year until this deadline, and 

that it does not provide adequate time allowed for installation and operation of the CEMS. The 

commentators suggest that there should be a longer timeframe for the system to be installed and 

operational, and suggest that May 1, 2010, should be the earliest implementation date for the 

CEMS. (3,4) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentators. The deadline of May 1, 2009, to 

install, operate and maintain a CEMS or alternate monitoring system or method has been 

removed from the final-form rulemaking. A CEMS or alternate monitoring system or method to 

determine compliance with the emission limits specified in subsection 129.304(a) in the finalform rulemaking must be installed, operating and maintained no later than 14 days prior to the 

applicable date by which a glass melting furnace is required to meet the emission limits specified 

in subsection 129.304(b) or (c) in the final-form rulemaking. 

22. Comment: A commentator stated that “to be consistent with the requirements of the CAIR, 

CEMS installation should be reserved for furnaces undergoing reconstruction or modification 

and not simple rebricking.” (4) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The EPA’s CAIR requirements 

are not applicable to this rulemaking. In addition, a CEMS or alternate monitoring system or 

method to determine compliance with the emission limits specified in subsection 129.304(a) in 

the final-form rulemaking must be installed, operating and maintained no later than 14 days prior 

to the date by which a glass melting furnace is required to meet the emission limits specified in 

subsection 129.304(b) or (c) in the final-form rulemaking. 

23. Comment: One commentator stated that the ‘alternate NOx emissions monitoring system 

or method’ referenced in the proposed rule should be further clarified to explain what is an 

allowable alternate system. (1) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. An alternate NOx emissions 

system or method is not designed to be a prescribed method or system. The owners or operators 

of glass melting furnaces who are planning to install, operate and maintain an alternate 

monitoring system or method are advised to contact their Department regional and central office 

contacts for specific information and guidance regarding the installation, review and approval 

requirements for any and all monitoring equipment. The timeframe to review and approve an 

alternate monitoring system or method is coordinated with each individual company during the 

certification process of the monitoring system. 

14
Public Comment/Response Document 

24. Comment: The IRRC questioned the lack of criteria, process and timetable the Department 

will use to decide on an approvable ‘alternate NOx emissions monitoring system or method’ in 

the compliance determination section. (9) 

Response: Please see the response to comment number 23. 

Start-Up Exemption

25. Comment: The commentator states that the start-up exemption time of 104 days for a flat 

glass furnace is too short, and suggests that 208 days be allowed for a flat glass furnace that uses 

a NOx control not readily available from a commercial supplier, not in common use, or that is 

innovative. (3) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator with respect to the start-up exemption 

time of 104 days for a flat glass furnace. To be consistent with the SJVAPCD Rule 4354, on 

whose NOx emission limits the OTC based its recommendations to its member states with glass 

melting furnaces, the final-form rulemaking revised the length of the start-up exemption in 

subsection 129.305(d) (relating to start-up requirements) for all types of glass furnaces. For flat 

glass furnaces, the maximum start-up exemption time is 208 days if the NOx control system is 

not in common use or is not readily available from a commercial supplier. 

26. Comment: The ‘not to exceed 5% excess oxygen’ restriction during a furnace combustion 

start-up should be eliminated, as it does not appear to have a relationship or a benefit to NOx 

emissions. (3) 

Response: The Department retains in the final-form rulemaking the furnace start-up restriction 

in subsection 129.305(f) of ‘not to exceed 5% excess oxygen,’ which is consistent with the 

furnace start-up requirements in the SJVAPCD Rule 4354. 

27. Comment: IRRC questioned the clarity of the start-up exemption procedure section. (9) 

Response: The Department believes that the start-up requirements found under § 129.305 of the 

final-form rulemaking are clear and precise. 

28. Comment: The Senate and House Environmental Committees commented to the Board on 

behalf of PPG Industries during the ANFR comment period that the start-up exemption 

unnecessarily restricts the exemption to a new furnace or furnace rebuild and does not account 

for an idled existing furnace, and implies that a plan approval would be required in connection 

with a furnace start-up, which is not necessarily the case. (7,8,10) 

Response: The Department has revised this section of the final-form rulemaking. Subsection 

129.305(b) specifies that a plan approval application for a furnace start-up exemption request 

shall be submitted ‘if required,’ in recognition that some furnace start-ups may not require a plan 

approval. 

15
Public Comment/Response Document 

Definitions

29. Comment: The NOx proposal should adopt the 2007 National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) definition of “glass melting furnace” instead of using the 

outdated 1980 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) definition. The NSPS definition 

includes a list of extraneous non-furnace equipment that goes against the intent of the proposed 

rule that requires monitoring NOx emissions from only the furnace. (2) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator. Section 121.1 (relating to definitions) 

has been revised in the final-form rulemaking to include the 2007 NESHAP definition of the 

term ‘glass melting furnace’ that was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2007 

(72 FR 73183). 

30. Comment: A commentator stated that the definition of ‘furnace rebuild’ is unclear and 

appears to broaden the scope of repair activities that currently require permitting, and that the 

definition should exclude rebricking activities as defined in 40 CFR Subpart CC and likewise 

exclude those activities from permitting. The term “complete reconstruction” in the furnace 

rebuild definition should be stated as “reconstruction” and have the same meaning as the Federal 

definition of “reconstruction” provided in 40 CFR Part 60.15. (3) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator. The definition of the term “complete 

reconstruction” proposed under § 121.1 in the proposed rulemaking has been deleted in the finalform rulemaking and a definition for “cold shutdown” added. The final-form rulemaking 

includes the term “scheduled” whenever the term “cold shutdown” is used within the final-form 

rulemaking to distinguish between furnace repair activities and a scheduled “cold shutdown” 

when the furnace is cold and does not contain molten glass. 

31. Comment: The Senate and House Committees commented to the Board on behalf of PPG 

Industries during the ANFR comment period that the definition of the term “start-up” should be 

revised to be consistent with the San Joaquin rule to include necessary language on furnace 

stabilization, that is, the phrase “and systems and instrumentation are brought to stabilization.” 

(7,8,10) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator. The definition of the term “start-up” 

proposed under § 121.1 has been revised in the final-form rulemaking to include the furnace 

stabilization phrase suggested by the commentator, and to be consistent with the SJVAPCD Rule 

4354. 

Miscellaneous

32. Comment: The IRRC commented on the phrase ‘in this Commonwealth’ in the compliance 

demonstration section, and questions if it means an owner or operator must be located in this 

Commonwealth, and what about when facilities are located in Pennsylvania but the owner is not. 

(9) 

16
Public Comment/Response Document 

Response: The phrase “in this Commonwealth” in paragraph 129.309(b)(3) means that NOx 

emissions from glass melting furnaces operating at more than one location within this 

Commonwealth, and under the same ownership or operator, may be averaged. The owner or 

operator does not have to be located in this Commonwealth. 

33. Comment: The proposed regulation should not expand the scope of what currently triggers 

permitting or plan approvals specified in the Pennsylvania Code and existing Federal 

regulations, and exemptions should be included for furnace rebricking and repairs or 

replacements that do not constitute a modification. (3) 

Response: The final-form rulemaking will require compliance with the NOx emission limits by 

January 1, 2012. The plan approval issued for the construction of a new glass melting furnace or 

furnace modification shall include terms and conditions consistent with the requirements of 

25 Pa. Code, Chapter 127, Subchapter B (relating to plan approval requirements). The 

Department has added in the final-form rulemaking under § 121.1 a definition for the term “cold 

shutdown,” and the rulemaking includes the term “scheduled” whenever the term “cold 

shutdown” is used within the final-form rulemaking to distinguish between furnace repair 

activities and a scheduled “cold shutdown” when the furnace is cold and does not contain molten 

glass. The Department believes this will alleviate the concerns about routine repairs to a furnace. 

34. Comment: The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) add-on control technologies for glass furnaces are not technically feasible control 

technologies for the intermittent NOx emissions from nitrate decomposition, and therefore are 

not feasible add-on controls for this commentator’s glass melting furnace facility. This 

commentator requests the EQB to explicitly exclude its facility from the proposed rule. (5) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The Department recognized that 

furnaces within this Commonwealth that produce a glass product other than the four types listed 

in the proposed rulemaking (flat, container, fiberglass or pressed and blown) were not adequately 

considered in the proposed rulemaking. As a result, the Department has added under § 129.304 

in the final-form rulemaking an emission limit of 6.0 lbs NOx/ton of glass pulled for any other 

glass melting furnace that does not produce flat, container, fiberglass or pressed and blown glass 

products. The Department, in researching and analyzing these types of furnaces within this 

Commonwealth, considered the limit of 6.0 lbs NOx/ton of glass pulled to be a reasonable limit 

based on the low NOx burner technology that is available to reduce uncontrolled NOx emissions 

by 30-35%. 

35. Comment: The proposed rule is directed at combustion sources of NOx, and the rule’s 

intent is to limit emissions of thermal NOx. Since 95% of this commentator’s NOx emissions 

are from decomposition of nitrogen-containing raw materials and not from thermal NOx 

combustion processes, the EQB should clarify that it is inappropriate to apply the proposed rule 

to them. (5) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The purpose of the proposed 

rulemaking is to control NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces. Section 129.302 (relating 

to applicability) of the final-form rulemaking clearly states that the provisions of the rulemaking 

17
Public Comment/Response Document 

apply to an owner or operator of a glass melting furnace that emits or has the potential to emit 

NOx at a rate greater than 50 tons per year. If a glass melting furnace in this Commonwealth 

meets the applicability criteria, the final-form rulemaking provisions apply. 

36. Comment: The Senate and House Environmental Committees and another commentator 

questioned the legal authority of the Department and the EQB to require glass melting facilities 

to significantly reduce NOx emissions under the authority of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution 

Control Act, 35 P.S. §§ 4001-4015. The commentators also stated that there is no legal basis to 

require significant reductions in NOx emissions when it can be demonstrated that their facility 

does not contribute to the failure of any nonattainment area to comply with the air quality 

standards for ozone. (3,7,8,10) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentators. The Department has the legal 

authority to require the owners and operators of glass melting furnaces to limit their emissions of 

NOx. The law in this Commonwealth is well-settled regarding whether a regulation is valid and 

binding. A court must evaluate if the regulation is 1) within the agency's granted power, 2) 

issued pursuant to proper procedures and 3) reasonable. See for example, Rohrbaugh v. PUC, 

556 Pa. 199, 727 A.2d 1080 (1999); and Housing Authority v. Pa. Civil Service Com'n, 556 Pa, 

621, 730 A.2d 935 (1999). Section 5 of the APCA provides that the Board shall adopt rules and 

regulations for the prevention, control, reduction and abatement of air pollution, applicable 

throughout the Commonwealth. Clearly the intent of the glass melting furnaces regulation is to 

reduce air pollution, and so therefore the Board has the requisite legal authority. The Board is 

proceeding with this rulemaking through the proper rulemaking procedures, as identified under 

the APCA, the Regulatory Review Act and the Commonwealth Documents Law. An 

environmental regulation is reasonable if it prevents the possibility of pollution (see Department 

of Environmental Resources v. Metzger, 347 A.2d 743 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)), protects the public 

health and safety (see Chambers Development Company, Inc. v. Department of Environmental 

Resources, 545 A.2d 404 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)), or reduces pollution (see Rochez Bros., Inc. v. 

Department of Environmental Resources, 334 A.2d 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)). Since this 

rulemaking reduces pollution it is reasonable. 

A demonstration using air dispersion modeling (point-source or regional scale) to show that a 

single facility “does not contribute to the failure of any nonattainment area to comply with the air 

quality standards for ozone” is not the determination of whether a facility is subject to a proposed 

rulemaking. Air dispersion models are not designed to simulate source-specific contributions to 

ozone nonattainment areas. A finding that emission reductions at one source of NOx does not 

contribute to the failure of any nonattainment area to comply with the air quality standards for 

ozone is not surprising. Sensitivity analyses have often shown that the Community Multiscale 

Air Quality (CMAQ) model used by states for attainment demonstrations is relatively "stiff" 

considering even large emission changes; that is, the model may not predict large changes in 

ozone concentrations even when large emission reductions are made. Therefore, a variance 

relying on modeling would be inappropriate. 

 

18
Public Comment/Response Document 

The OTC undertook a study to identify a suite of control measures that could be used by the 

members as part of a regional effort to attain and maintain the 1997 NAAQS for ozone.2 The 

additional NOx emission reductions from glass melting furnaces are a necessary component in 

this regional strategy. 

37. Comment: The Senate and House Environmental Committees and another commentator 

stated that the proposed rule should provide for a variance if it could be demonstrated that it is 

economically unreasonable for the glass melting furnace facility to comply with the requirements 

of the rule, that the public interest is best served by granting the variance, and that the current 

operations at the glass melting furnace facility have no significant adverse impact on 

atmospheric NOx concentrations and do not affect the Commonwealth’s 8-hour ozone 

demonstration. (3,7,8,10) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. A demonstration using air 

dispersion (point-source or regional scale) to show that a single facility “does not contribute to 

the failure of any nonattainment area to comply with the air quality standards for ozone” is not 

the determination of whether a facility is subject to a proposed rulemaking. A finding that 

emission reductions at one source of NOx does not contribute to the failure of any nonattainment 

area to comply with the air quality standards for ozone is not surprising. Sensitivity analyses 

have often shown that the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model used by states for 

attainment demonstrations is relatively "stiff" considering even large emission changes; that is, 

the model may not predict large changes in ozone concentrations even when large emission 

reductions are made. Therefore, a variance relying on modeling would be inappropriate. 

Certain areas of this Commonwealth continue to exceed the health-based 1997 8-hour NAAQS 

for ozone. See 62 FR 38855 (July 18, 1997). The final-form rulemaking to control NOx 

emissions from glass melting furnaces will result in additional NOx emission reductions that are 

necessary to support attaining and maintaining the health-based 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

this Commonwealth and downwind areas. Furthermore, on March 12, 2008, the EPA issued a 

more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb that would require additional reductions of 

ozone precursor emissions, including NOx, that impact ozone attainment in this Commonwealth 

and throughout the OTR. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). However, the EPA has 

reconsidered the 2008 ozone NAAQS and on January 19, 2010, published a proposed 

rulemaking to set a more protective 8-hour primary standard at a lower level within the range of 

0.060-0.070 ppm; the final revised ozone standard is expected in August 2010. See 75 FR 2938. 

If, as is widely expected, the EPA tightens the ozone standard, the additional NOx emissions 

from the final-form rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will be even more important than if 

the current ozone standard remains in place. 

This final-form rulemaking will also contribute to reduced formation of PM2.5 and regional 

haze. The EPA, in its “Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,” determined that NOx 

emissions are also precursors to the formation of PM2.5. See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). In 

 

2 Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures, Final Technical Support Document. Prepared for 

the Ozone Transport Commission, Washington DC, by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., Herndon, VA, February 

28, 2007. 

19
Public Comment/Response Document 

November 2009, the EPA designated 6 areas (all or part of 22 counties) in this Commonwealth 

as not attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). 

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities 

which emit fine particles and their precursors, including NOx, and which are located across a 

broad geographic area. See 64 FR 35713 at p.35715 (July 1, 1999). Therefore, the adoption of 

the final-form rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will help to reduce formation of ozone, 

PM2.5 and regional haze in this Commonwealth and downwind. As a result, this rulemaking is 

reasonably necessary to achieve and maintain the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

38. Comment: A commentator stated that the Department did not adequately address, while 

drafting and promulgating the proposed regulation and in accordance with Executive Order 

1996-1, whether the costs of the regulation exceed its benefits or not, and also stated that the 

proposed rulemaking does not support a conclusion that its costs will not exceed the benefits, and 

therefore the cost/benefit analysis should be more thoroughly addressed. (4) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The Department addressed the 

benefits and the costs associated with the proposed rulemaking in the preamble to the proposed 

rulemaking’s public notice published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on April 19, 2008 (38 Pa.B.

1831). Additionally, as part of the Commonwealth’s comprehensive rulemaking process, the 

Department is required to evaluate all costs associated with the rulemaking on the affected 

industry as part of a detailed regulatory analysis form. This form is required to be submitted for 

review to the Governor’s Office of General Counsel, the Senate and House Environmental 

Committees and the Attorney General as part of the rulemaking package. 

39. Comment: The Senate and House Environmental Committees commented to the Board on 

behalf of PPG Industries during the ANFR comment period that an exemption from the emission 

limits should be included for glass melting furnaces during “periods of upset or malfunction” that 

affect an emission control device. The Senate and House Committees also commented that the 

routine maintenance exemption of 144 hours in total for add-on emission controls is not long 

enough to account for the complexities of the control techniques likely to be employed, and that 

each major component of the control system be exempted from the emission limits for 144 hours 

each calendar year for routine maintenance. (7,8,10) 

Response: The Department believes that an exemption for a furnace malfunction or upset period 

is not required. The Department does not routinely provide exemptions from emission limits for 

periods of upset or malfunction in regulations to control emissions from sources. The 

Department believes that the SJVAPCD Rule 4354 addresses the issue of exemption from 

emission limits during maintenance appropriately, by allowing a total of 144 hours each calendar 

year for routine maintenance on all add-on controls. The SJVAPCD Rule 4354 does not provide 

an exemption from the emission limits for periods of upset or malfunction. The Department 

considered that the furnace itself should be included within the framework of routine 

maintenance, and has added subsection 129.304(d) to the final-form rulemaking to address 

exemptions from emission limits for maintenance or repair measures on the furnace components. 

40. Comment: The Senate and House Environmental Committees commented to the Board on 

behalf of PPG Industries during the ANFR comment period that the petition process described in 

20
Public Comment/Response Document 

21

subsections 129.304(b) and (c) of the ANFR final-form rulemaking should specify what factors 

the Department will consider in order for a glass melting furnace to qualify for an alternative 

compliance deadline. The Committees commented that specifying such factors will avoid 

confusion and misunderstanding regarding what a glass melting furnace must demonstrate and 

submit for the Department’s approval by January 1, 2011. Those factors should consist of 

whether the furnace in question meets its existing emission limitations, the anticipated date of the 

next furnace rebricking, and whether the furnace will continue to meet its existing emission 

limitations. (7,8,10) 

Response: The Department believes the petition process contained in subsections 129.304(b) 

and (c) of the final-form rulemaking is comprehensive but not overly prescriptive and includes 

all the factors suggested by the Committee. In addition, the Department revised this section in 

the final-form rulemaking to require submittal, and not approval, of a petition request to the 

Department by January 1, 2012, and not by January 1, 2011. The Department maintains that the 

concern expressed by the Committees on behalf of PPG Industries regarding the petition process 

will be alleviated by the change to the final-form regulation that requires submittal of the petition 

by January 1, 2012, and does not require approval of the petition by January 1, 2011. This 

timeframe will provide the owners and operators of glass melting furnaces the flexibility to 

coordinate with the Department on a case-by-case basis the exact information the Department 

requires in order to determine the approval of a petition submittal.