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, 2013

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: 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 of the Wool Fiberglass MACT Standard. The applicability 

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-compliance typically results in hefty fines and penalties, it is 

imperative that the applicability section of any statute or regulation be clear and unambiguous.

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”) 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 of the applicability of emission standards 

in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category.

Since 1999, the Wool 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 letter 

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 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 
Ms. Susan Fairchild

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 intent to limit applicability was well known and is reflected in the 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 

utilize formaldehyde in their production processes. EPA’s intent is further documented in a 2002 

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 “the 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 applicability 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 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 been regulated and are separately subcategorized.

Despite this clear regulatory history and the unambiguous language in the current regulation, in a 

passing 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 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 of EPA that the unbonded 

lines and products were never intended to be included in the MACT Standard, now some 12 

years old. 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 intent,” 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 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 

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 Regulation, the established precedent and practice of how the MACT 

Standard has been interpreted and enforced by EPA, and the compliance history of the industry. 

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.

Moreover the footnote (see 78 Fed. Reg. at 22374) 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 Docket.

NAIMA strongly objects to the confusion 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 the ambiguity. 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 approach 

suggested above. If EPA seeks to amend the applicability section, 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 improper 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 Regulation, in EPA’s historical interpretation 

and regulatory precedent, or enforcement 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