44 Canal Center Plaza ▪ Suite 310 ▪ Alexandria, Virginia 22314 ▪ Tel: (703) 684

- 0084 ▪ Fax: (703) 684

- 0427 VIA E

- MAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL

April 19 , 201 3

Ms. Susan Fairchild Sector Policies and Programs Division Metals and Minerals Group (D243

- 02) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4930 Old Page Road Durham, NC 27703

RE: W oo l 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 of the Wool Fiberglass MACT Standard. The a pplicability section of any Federal or state regulatory requirement is arguably the most important provision of a statute or regulation. The applicability provisions identify the entities or processes that must comply. Given the fact that non

- complianc e typically results in hefty fines and penalties, it is imperative that the a pplicability section of any statute or regulation be clear and unambiguous.

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”) writes this letter with

serious conc ern 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 Gas

Fired Me lting Furnaces Located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources” (hereinafter

the “Proposal ” ) and its seemingly intentional confusion of the applicability of emission standards in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category.

Since 1999, the Woo l Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT Standard has been applicable only to the manufacture of products bonded with phenol

- formaldehyde binder . This logical limitation on applicability was the intention of NAIMA and its members and EPA. The author of this lette r and other NAIMA member company personnel currently engaged in dialogue with EPA on the Proposal were also involved in the discussions leading to the 1999 requirements. At that time, it

was the consensus and intention of both EPA and industry to impose t his 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 f or Hazardous Air Pollutants . . .,” EPA states “RS and FA manufa cturing 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, inMs . Susan Fairchild April 19 , 2013 Page 2

footnote 3 ( see 78 Fed. Reg. at 22374) , make s much of “EPA’s intent.” In finalizing the Rule in 1999, EPA’s intent to limit applicability was well known and is reflect ed in the plain language of

the R egulation. 1 In fact, it would have been illogical to regulate unbonded lines w hen formaldehyde was the only hazardous air pollutant to be regulated , and these products did not utilize formaldehyde in their production processes

. EPA’s intent is further documented in a 2002 EPA Applicability Determination, which expressly states a fa cility 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 “t he Applicability Determination”).

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, if EPA intended to amend the a pplicability section, this is where such an amendment should be reflected and recorded to prevent confusion or uncertainty with respect to one of the most essential sections of any regulatory framework. Even in this discussion, EPA notes its purpose is to end the subcategorization fo r 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 n ew 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 amendment s to flame attenuation lines. The effect of EPA’s change to the applicability language increases applicability beyond the pi p e and heavy density products that have been regulated and are separately subcategorized.

Despite this clear regulatory history and the unambiguous language in the current regulation, in a passi ng reference and a footnote, the Agency suggests it never intended to “exempt any major sources or incentivize such sources to avoid MACT coverage by producing non

- bonded products

. . .” This statement is incorrect, which is best demonstrated by the simpl e 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 knowledg e of EPA that the unbonded lines and products were never intended to be included in the MACT Standard, now some 12

years o ld

. This is further confirmed by the Applicability Determination EPA 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 inten t ,” as referenced in the aforementioned footnote, is best determined by the

1 “ Subpart NNN

. . . § 63.1380

. . . (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of hazar d ous 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 facilit y 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 spin wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded wool fiberglass building insulation product. ”Ms . Susan Fairchild April 19 , 2013 Page 3

plain language of the R egulation

, the established precedent and practice of how the MACT

Standard has been interpreted and enforced by EPA

, and the compli ance history of the indust ry. EPA’s comment, if taken 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. Surely that is not EPA’s intent.

Moreove r the footnote ( see 78 Fed. Reg. at 2 23 7 4 ) references EPA’s own language without any footnote or citation. The source and origin of this cited language is undisclosed and cannot, as of yet, be found in the EPA D ocket.

NAIMA strongly objects to the confus ion EPA has caused by indirectly raising questions about the application of this Rule to unbonded lines or furnaces outside the Wool Fiberglass Category

. Ambiguity has no place in applicability provisions . As such

, NAIMA requests that EPA

eliminate th e a mbiguity. Specifically, NAIMA asks that EPA state plainly and for the record that the Agency is not changing, amending, or modifying the applicability section

, other than the limited changes to flame attenuation, for which NAIMA urges EPA to adopt the app roach suggested above

. If EPA seeks to amend the a pplicability s ection, NAIMA requests that the Agency follow established administrative law procedures for notice and comment rulemaking and propose an amendment that is subject to public comment. It is im proper and unacceptable to revise the applicability provision by simply referencing “EPA’s intent” when that purported intent has no support in the plain language of the R egulation

, in EPA’s historical interpretation and regulatory precedent, or enforcemen t history

.

There should be no questions or uncertainties when it comes to the applicability of an EPA

emission standard

.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane Executive Vice President, General Counsel

cc: Mr. Keith W. Barnett Group Leader, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division, Mineral and Manufacturing Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4930 Old Page Road Durham, NC 27703