RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 25—ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

[ 25 PA. CODE CHS. 121 AND 129 ]

Control of NOx Emissions from Glass Melting

Furnaces

The Environmental Quality Board (Board) amends

Chapters 121 and 129 (relating to general provisions; and

standards for sources) to read as set forth in Annex A.

This final-form rulemaking controls nitrogen oxide (NOx)

emissions from glass melting furnaces.

This order was adopted by the Board at its meeting of

March 16, 2010.

A. Effective Date

This final-form rulemaking will be effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

This final-form rulemaking will be submitted to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as

a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan

(SIP) upon publication.

B. Contact Persons

For further information, contact Jane Mahinske, Air

Quality Program Specialist, Division of Air Resource

Management, Bureau of Air Quality, 12th Floor, Rachel

Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box 8468, Harrisburg,

PA 17105-8468, (717) 783-8949; or Robert ‘‘Bo’’ Reiley,

Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, 9th

Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box

8464, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, (717) 787-7060. Persons

with a disability may use the Pennsylvania AT&T Relay

Service by calling (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800)

654-5988 (voice users). This final-form rulemaking is

available electronically through the Department of Environmental Protection’s (Department) web site at

www.depweb.state.pa.us.

C. Statutory Authority

This action is being taken under the authority of

section 5(a)(1) of the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) (35

P. S. § 4005(a)(1)), which grants to the Board the authority to adopt regulations for the prevention, control, reduction and abatement of air pollution.

D. Background and Summary

When ground-level ozone is present in concentrations in

excess of the Federal health-based standards, public

health is adversely affected. The EPA has concluded that

there is an association between ambient ozone concentrations and increased hospital admissions for respiratory

ailments, such as asthma. Further, although children, the

elderly and those with respiratory problems are most at

risk, even healthy individuals may experience increased

respiratory ailments and other symptoms when they are

exposed to ambient ozone while engaged in activities that

involve physical exertion. Though these symptoms are

often temporary, repeated exposure could result in permanent lung damage. The implementation of additional

measures to reduce exposure to elevated ozone concentrations in this Commonwealth is necessary to protect the

public health and the environment. The EPA established

the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) at 62 FR 38855,

38856 (July 18, 1997). On March 12, 2008, the EPA

issued a more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075

ppm that would require additional reductions of ozone

precursor emissions in this Commonwealth. See 73 FR

16436 (March 27, 2008). However, the EPA has reconsidered the 2008 ozone NAAQS and published a proposed

rulemaking at 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010) 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 NAAQS is expected in August 2010.

In addition, the adoption and implementation of this

final-form rulemaking also allows the Commonwealth to

make progress in attaining and maintaining the fine

particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, since NOx is a PM2.5

precursor. See 73 FR 28321, 28325 (May 16, 2008). The

health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 are

significant. Epidemiological studies have shown a significant correlation between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important effects associated with

PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and

cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital

admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school

or work and restricted activity days), lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks and certain cardiovascular problems. Individuals particularly sensitive to

PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart

and lung disease and children. At 74 FR 58688, 58758

(November 13, 2009), the EPA designated 6 areas including all or portions of 22 counties in this Commonwealth

as nonattainment areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.

The purpose of this final-form rulemaking is to reduce

emissions of NOx from glass melting furnaces to reduce

levels of ground-level ozone and fine particulate. Groundlevel ozone is not directly emitted by pollution sources,

but is created as a result of the chemical reaction of NOx

and volatile organic compounds in the presence of light

and heat. The reduction of NOx emissions will also help

protect the public health and environment from high

levels of PM2.5, of which NOx is a precursor component.

The reduction of NOx emissions also reduces visibility

impairment and acid deposition. As a result, to the extent

that it is more stringent than any corresponding Federal

requirement, this final-form rulemaking is reasonably

necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS for both

ozone and PM2.5.

The glass industry in this Commonwealth produces a

variety of products, including flat glass, container glass,

fiberglass and pressed and blown glass. In 2002, flat glass

production accounted for approximately 7,450 tons of NOx

emissions; container glass production accounted for approximately 1,800 tons of NOx emissions; fiberglass production accounted for approximately 150 tons of NOx

emissions; and pressed and blown glass, including picture

tube glass, accounted for approximately 2,500 tons of

NOx emissions. Total glass melting furnace NOx emissions in 2002 were approximately 11,900 tons. Since 2002,

a number of furnaces or facilities, or both, have discontinued operation or made process changes and total NOx

emissions during 2005 were approximately 9,814 tons. As

a result, the glass industry in this Commonwealth remains one of the largest sources of NOx emissions in this

Commonwealth.

3328

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
This Commonwealth, along with Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and

Virginia, and the District of Columbia, are members of

the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), which was created under section 184 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42

U.S.C.A. § 7511c) to develop and implement regional

solutions to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. To date, states from the

OTC, including the Commonwealth, have established a

number of regulatory programs to reduce ozone precursor

emissions, including programs regarding portable fuel

containers, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings and consumer products. Consistent with its strategy

to achieve equitable ozone precursor emission reductions

from all industrial sectors, the Commonwealth, along

with other OTC states, has met with representatives of

the glass industry to discuss reductions of NOx emissions

from glass melting furnaces. There is general agreement

that the NOx emission regulatory limits for the glass

industry developed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) in California are appropriate NOx emission limits for glass melting operations

located in this Commonwealth and the other OTC States.

The SJVAPCD Rule was first adopted in 1994 and

subsequently amended in 1998, 2002 and 2006; this

amended regulation was used to develop the Commonwealth’s regulations, which serve as the OTC model rule

for glass melting furnaces. 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 in this

Commonwealth and determined that proposing a glass

melting furnaces regulation based on the SJVAPCD

Rule’s 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.

As part of the proposed rulemaking, the Board proposed under § 129.309 (relating to compliance demonstration) that the owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace may demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 129.304 (relating to emission requirements) by

surrendering Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOx

Ozone Season allowances for each ton of NOx emissions

that exceeds the allowable emissions of the applicable

glass melting furnaces. In response to comments received

during the official public comment period on the proposed

rulemaking for glass melting furnaces, and following the

Department’s review of other related information, the

Department prepared a draft final-form rulemaking for

public comment. The draft final-form rulemaking contained significant changes in several areas and the

Department believed that, while not legally required,

further discussion and an additional comment period

would serve the public interest. An Advance Notice of

Final Rulemaking (ANFR) was published at 39 Pa.B.

5318 (September 12, 2009). The most significant change

made in the draft final-form rulemaking concerned deletion of the NOx surrender compliance option which

allowed for the purchase of CAIR NOx allowances. The

EPA held discussions with the Department subsequent to

the closing of the public comment period on June 23,

2008, 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 these discussions, the EPA

indicated to the Department that providing a compliance

option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances in the finalform rulemaking would jeopardize the approval of the

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

CAIR program as a source category. Therefore, the compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances was

deleted from the final-form rulemaking.

There are three additional significant changes to the

final-form rulemaking:

(1) The provision requiring compliance with the emission limits during the ozone season from May-September

has been deleted. The Department further revised the

final-form rulemaking to require compliance with the

NOx emission limits year-round because NOx is a precursor to the formation of PM2.5, which is monitored

year-round. In addition, NOx is also a precursor to the

formation of ozone 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, 34538 (July 16,

2009).

(2) The final-form rulemaking adds a NOx emission

limit applicable to a glass melting furnace that produces

a glass product that is other than flat, container, fiberglass, or pressed or blown.

(3) The final-form rulemaking provides a petition process for an alternative emission limitation to the owner or

operator of a glass melting furnace that demonstrates it

is economically or technologically infeasible to meet the

NOx emission limitations specified in § 129.304(a). An

alternative emission limitation approved by the Department must be included in either a plan approval or an

operating permit issued by the Department or a permit

issued by the appropriate approved local air pollution

control agency. Moreover, the petition process in the

final-form rulemaking also allows an owner or operator to

submit a petition for an alternative compliance schedule

if compliance with the NOx emission limitations is not

achieved by the January 1, 2012, compliance deadline

specified in § 129.304(b).

The Department worked with the Air Quality Technical

Advisory Committee (AQTAC) in the development of this

final-form rulemaking. At its November 18, 2009, meeting, the AQTAC recommended revisions to the final-form

rulemaking and concurred with the Department’s recommendation to advance the regulation to the Board for

consideration as a final-form rulemaking. The AQTAC

recommended that the Department evaluate the requirements for exemptions in § 129.303 (relating to exemptions), specify the role of local air pollution control

agencies and re-evaluate the invalidated data substitution

method. These revisions were considered and incorporated into the final-form rulemaking.

The Department also conferred with the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) concerning the final-form rulemaking

on December 15, 2009. The CAC concurred with the

Department’s recommendation to advance the regulation

to the Board for consideration as a final-form rulemaking.

E. Summary of Final-Form Rulemaking and Changes

from Proposed to Final-Form Rulemaking

Summary of Final-Form Rulemaking

The final-form rulemaking adds the following definitions and terms to § 121.1 (relating to definitions) used

in the substantive provisions under §§ 129.301—129.310

(relating to control of NOx emissions from glass melting

furnaces): ‘‘blown glass,’’ ‘‘cold shutdown,’’ ‘‘container

glass,’’ ‘‘fiberglass,’’ ‘‘flat glass,’’ ‘‘glass melting furnace,’’

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3329

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
‘‘idling,’’ ‘‘permitted production capacity,’’ ‘‘pressed glass,’’

‘‘primary furnace combustion system,’’ ‘‘pull rate,’’ ‘‘shutdown’’ and ‘‘start-up.’’

The following proposed definitions and terms were

deleted between proposed and final-form rulemaking:

‘‘100% air-fuel fired,’’ ‘‘air-fuel firing,’’ ‘‘complete reconstruction,’’ ‘‘furnace battery,’’ ‘‘furnace rebuild,’’ ‘‘multiple

furnaces,’’ ‘‘oxyfuel fired’’ and ‘‘oxygen-assisted combustion.’’

Section 129.301 (relating to purpose) annually limits

the emissions of NOx from glass melting furnaces.

Section 129.302 (relating to applicability) specifies that

the regulation applies 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.

Section 129.303 (relating to exemptions) provides,

among other things, that the emission requirements in

§ 129.304 do not apply during periods of start-up, shutdown or idling as defined in § 121.1 if the owner or

operator complies with the requirements of §§ 129.305—

129.307 (relating to start-up requirements; shutdown

requirements; and idling requirements). Owners and operators claiming the exemption shall notify the Department or approved local air pollution control agency within

24 hours after initiation of the operation for which the

exemption is claimed. Additionally, the owner or operator

of a glass melting furnace granted an exemption under

§ 129.303 shall maintain operating records or documentation, or both, necessary to support the claim for the

exemption.

Section 129.304 provides that the owner or operator of

a glass melting furnace shall determine allowable NOx

emissions by multiplying the tons of glass pulled by each

furnace by: 4.0 pounds of NOx per ton (lbs NOx/ton) of

glass pulled for container glass furnaces; 7.0 lbs NOx/ton

of glass pulled for pressed or blown glass furnaces; 4.0 lbs

NOx/ton of glass pulled for fiberglass furnaces; 7.0 lbs

NOx/ton of glass pulled for flat glass furnaces; and 6.0 lbs

NOx/ton of glass pulled for all other glass melting

furnaces. The owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace shall comply with the allowable NOx emissions

by January 1, 2012, unless a petition for an alternative

emission limitation or compliance schedule is submitted,

in writing, to the Department or approved local air

pollution control agency by January 1, 2012, and subsequently approved, in writing, by the Department or

approved local air pollution control agency.

The final-form rulemaking provides a petition process

for an alternative NOx emission limitation to the owner

or operator of a glass melting furnace that demonstrates

to the Department’s satisfaction that it is economically or

technologically infeasible to meet the established emission

limitations in § 129.304. An alternative NOx emission

limitation approved by the Department must be included

in either a plan approval or an operating permit issued

by the Department or a permit issued by the appropriate

approved local air pollution control agency. Moreover, this

final-form rulemaking also includes a petition process for

an alternative compliance schedule if an owner or operator of a glass melting furnace demonstrates that compliance cannot be achieved by the January 1, 2012, compliance date specified in § 129.304(b).

Section 129.305 (relating to start-up requirements)

requires the owner or operator to submit specific information requested by the Department or approved local air

pollution control agency to assure proper operation of the

furnace. The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

may submit a request for a start-up exemption in conjunction with the plan approval application, if required.

The length of the start-up exemption may not exceed a

finite number of days depending on the type of furnace.

The Department or approved local air pollution control

agency may approve start-up exemptions to the extent

that the request identifies, among other things, the

control technologies or strategies to be used. Additionally,

the owner or operator shall place the emission control

system in operation as soon as technologically feasible

during start-up to minimize emissions.

Section 129.306 (relating to shutdown requirements)

provides, among other things, that the duration of a glass

melting furnace shutdown, as measured from the time

the furnace operations drop below 25% of the permitted

production capacity or fuel use capacity to when all

emissions from the furnace cease, shall not exceed 20

days.

Section 129.307 (relating to idling requirements) provides, among other things, that the owner or operator of a

glass melting furnace shall operate the emission control

system whenever technologically feasible during idling to

minimize emissions.

Section 129.308 (relating to compliance determination)

provides, among other things, that no later than 14 days

prior to the applicable date under § 129.304, the owner

or operator of a glass melting furnace subject to this

section and §§ 129.301—129.307 and 129.309 and

§ 129.310 (relating to recordkeeping) shall install, operate and maintain continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) (as defined in § 121.1) for NOx and other

monitoring systems to convert data to required reporting

units in compliance with Chapter 139, Subchapter C

(relating to requirements for source monitoring for stationary sources), and calculate actual emissions using the

CEMS data reported to the Department or approved local

air pollution control agency. However, the owner or

operator of a glass melting furnace may elect to install

and operate an alternate NOx emissions monitoring

system or method approved, in writing, by the Department or approved local air pollution control agency. Data

invalidated under Chapter 139, Subchapter C shall be

substituted with other values if approved, in writing, by

the Department or approved local air pollution control

agency.

Section 129.309 provides that the owner or operator of

a glass melting furnace shall calculate and report to the

Department or approved local air pollution agency on a

quarterly basis no later than 30 days after the end of the

quarter the CEMS data and glass production data used to

show compliance with the allowable NOx emission limitations. The glass production data must consist of the

quantity of glass in tons pulled per day for each furnace.

Compliance can be demonstrated on a furnace-by-furnace

basis; facility-wide emissions averaging basis; or a

system-wide emissions averaging basis among glass melting furnaces under common control of the same owner or

operator in this Commonwealth. The owner or operator

for which the Department has granted approval to voluntarily opt into a market-based program may not demonstrate compliance on an emissions averaging basis. Moreover, an emission reduction obtained by emission

averaging to demonstrate compliance with the emission

requirements will not be considered surplus for emission

reduction purposes.

Section 129.310 (relating to recordkeeping) provides

that the owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

subject to the requirements of this section and

§§ 129.301—129.309 shall maintain certain records to

demonstrate compliance.

3330 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
Changes from Proposed to Final-Form Rulemaking

In addition to the revisions for definitions previously

discussed in this section, changes from the proposed

rulemaking to final-form rulemaking are summarized as

follows.

In § 129.302, the metric ‘‘20 pounds per hour’’ and the

May 1, 2009, applicability date were deleted from the

final-form regulation. The phrase ‘‘appropriate approved

local air pollution control agency’’ was added to this

section.

Changes to § 129.303 between proposed and final-form

rulemakings include, among other things, the deletion of

the exemption regarding glass melting furnaces heated by

an electric current from electrodes submerged in molten

glass. The final-form regulation includes a requirement

that owners and operators of glass melting furnaces

claiming an exemption shall notify the Department or

appropriate approved local air pollution control agency

within 24 hours after the initiation of the operation for

which the exemption is claimed. As part of the notification requirements, the owner or operator shall identify

the emission control system operating during the exemption period. Finally, the phrase ‘‘appropriate approved

local air pollution control agency’’ was also added to

subsections (b)—(d).

Changes to § 129.304, among other things, include the

requirement that the owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace may not operate a glass melting furnace that

results in NOx emissions in excess of the allowable

emissions established therein or the NOx emission limits

contained in the plan approval or operating permit,

whichever is lower. This section has also been revised to

allow the owners and operators of glass melting furnaces

to submit a petition for an alternative emission limitation

or compliance schedule, if the owners or operators are

unable to meet the allowable NOx emission limits. In

addition, the final-form rulemaking sets forth the information necessary to be included in a petition that will be

considered by the Department or appropriate approved

local air pollution control agency as it relates to an

alternative NOx emission limitation or compliance schedule. However, the alternative compliance schedule for a

cold shutdown which occurs after the effective date of this

final-form rulemaking may not be extended beyond 180

days from the start-up of the furnace after the cold

shutdown, unless approved, in writing, by the Department. Lastly, an exemption from the NOx emission limits

is provided under certain conditions during routine maintenance of an add-on emission control system, maintenance or repair of certain components of the glass melting

furnace.

Final-form changes to § 129.305 include, among other

things, start-up exemption periods for all other glass

melting furnaces not otherwise covered under the proposed rulemaking. The final-form regulation also includes

maximum start-up exemption periods for certain glass

melting furnaces that employ NOx control systems not in

common use or not readily available from a commercial

supplier. Section 129.305 also includes language that

allows, in addition to the Department, an approved local

air pollution control agency to be notified and to make

certain determinations related to start-up requirements.

Changes to §§ 129.306 and 129.307 authorize an approved local air pollution control agency, in addition to

the Department, to determine when the operation of an

emission control system is technologically feasible.

In § 129.308, the final-form regulation allows the highest valid 1-hour emission values to be substituted if data

is invalidated under Chapter 139, Subchapter C. An

approved local air pollution control agency may also make

compliance determinations under this section.

Changes to § 129.309 between proposed and final-form

rulemaking include the deletion of language regarding

the use and surrender of CAIR NOx ozone season allowances.

In § 129.310, the owner or operator claiming that a

glass melting furnace is exempt from the requirements of

§§ 129.301—129.309 based on the furnace’s potential to

emit shall maintain records that clearly demonstrate to

the Department or appropriate approved local air pollution control agency that the furnace is not subject to

those regulatory requirements.

F. Summary of Comments and Responses on the Proposed

Rulemaking

Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rulemaking

A commentator supports and strongly urges the adoption of the NOx emission limits for fiberglass plants

consistent with the 4.0 lbs NOx/ton of glass pulled

adopted by the OTC. The Board appreciates the commentator’s support of the proposed rulemaking for fiberglass

plants.

A commentator stated that the emission limit for

fiberglass plants in the proposed rulemaking 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. The Board agrees with the commentator

that the emission limit for fiberglass furnaces can be

achieved with technologies currently available.

The commentator stated that it is an arbitrary and

capricious action to base the regulations proposed NOx

emission limits on a California rule without an explanation as to why they are appropriate to this Commonwealth. The Board disagrees with the commentator. The

Board 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 multistate organization created under section 184 of the

CAA. 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 MidAtlantic regions. The members of the OTC are required to

demonstrate attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard of 80 parts per billion (ppb). See 62 FR 38855.

Additionally, 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. See 73 FR 16436. The 2008 revised standard

requires additional reductions of emissions of ozone precursors, including NOx, that impact each member’s

nonattainment status. As required by the CAA, the

Commonwealth submitted recommendations to the EPA

in 2009 to designate 29 counties as nonattainment for the

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA was expected to take

final action on the designation recommendations by

March 2010. However, the EPA reconsidered the 2008

ozone NAAQS and published a proposed rulemaking at 75

FR 2938 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. 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

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3331

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
standard remains in place. In addition, 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 and 64 FR 35713 (July 1,

1999). NOx emissions are precursors to the development

of PM2.5 and regional haze.

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 Ozone

Transport Region (OTR) that have glass melting furnaces

(this Commonwealth, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island) 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 emissions 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 recommends

that states may allow the owners or operators of glass

melting furnaces to propose compliance methods based on

California’s 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 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 in this Commonwealth, and determined

that proposing a glass melting furnaces regulation based

on SJVAPCD Rule 4354 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.

The 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

SJVAPCD Rule 4354 so that there would be a level

playing field among the 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

§ 129.304(b) and (c).

The commentator 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. The Board proposed the allowable

emission requirements as a result of the research conducted by and the recommendations of the OTC. In

addition, the Commonwealth also conducted its own

independent research and verified the OTC recommendation. Control of NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces in the six states within the OTR that have glass

melting furnaces (this Commonwealth, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island) was

identified by the OTC as a control measure for further

analysis. Moreover, 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 § 129.304(b) and (c).

The commentator stated that the proposed rulemaking

does not include emission requirements for specialty glass

manufacturing, and therefore the proposed rulemaking

does not apply to their glass melting furnace since it does

not meet the applicability criteria defined in the proposed

rulemaking. The Board recognizes this and as a result,

this final-form rulemaking also includes a petition process

for an alternative compliance schedule if the owner or

operator of a glass melting furnace demonstrates that

compliance will not be achieved by the January 1, 2012,

compliance date specified in § 129.304(b).

The proposed rulemaking’s compliance determination

section should express NOx in the same units as in the

emission requirements section of the proposed rulemaking

(lbs/hr vs. lbs NOx/ton glass). The Board disagrees with

the commentator. The CEMS’ equipment is not designed

to sample and report a source’s process-derived emissions

data, for example, tons of glass pulled at a glass melting

furnace. The CEMS equipment samples 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 § 129.309(a), the

submittal shall include the CEMS monitored data in

pounds per hour and the glass production data in tons of

glass pulled per day for each furnace.

The commentator stated that the emission requirements compliance date of May 1, 2009, is unreasonable

because there is less than 1 year until this deadline and

the proposed rulemaking was not yet final and may not

be final before the end of 2008. The Board acknowledges

that the proposed rulemaking’s compliance date of May 1,

3332 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
2009, is impractical. Therefore, the final-form rulemaking

requires compliance with the NOx emission limits by

January 1, 2012.

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. The Board agrees with the commentator that the proposed rulemaking’s compliance date of

May 1, 2009, is impractical. The final-form rulemaking

requires compliance with the emission limits by January

1, 2012.

The Independent Regulatory Review Commission

(IRRC) commented that the Board should review the

practicality of the 2009 compliance deadline, given the

uncertainty of the future of the EPA’s CAIR allowance

program and questioned if other compliance options will

be available for providing flexibility to the affected industry. The Board agrees with the commentator. Subsequent

to the closing of the public comment period on June 23,

2008, 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. The EPA indicated to the Department that the

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. Therefore, the Board

removed from the final-form rulemaking the compliance

option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances.

The House and Senate Environmental Resources and

Energy Committees (Committees) commented that it may

assist the Department as well as the regulated industry

to not base the compliance time frame 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. The Board has modified the final-form rulemaking to provide for a petition

process to all glass melting furnace owners and operators

under § 129.304(b) for an alternative compliance schedule if they will be unable to meet the emission limits

beginning January 1, 2012. The Board 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 § 129.304(c).

Additionally, the SJVAPCD Rule whose NOx emission

limits and compliance methods were recommended by the

OTC control measures group specifies a final compliance

date.

A commentator stated that the proposed rulemaking

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. The Board disagrees with the commentator. The

use of NOx credits previously banked due to prior

emission reductions is clarified in the Department’s NOx

Budget Trading Program under § 145.90(a) (relating to

emission reduction credit provisions): ‘‘ERCs may not be

used to satisfy NOx allowance requirements.’’ Further, as

previously explained, the final-form regulation no longer

provides the compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx

allowances.

A commentator stated that the Board did not adequately address, while drafting and promulgating the

proposed rulemaking and in accordance with Executive

Order 1996-1, ‘‘Regulatory Review and Promulgation,’’

that when there are existing Federal regulations covering

the subject matter as does the EPA’s CAIR regulation,

that a 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 electric generating units (EGU).

Glass melting furnaces are not EGUs, thus under the

EPA’s CAIR, specific regulation of glass manufacturing is

notably absent. The purpose of the Department’s 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 from the EGU sector. In fact, this Commonwealth

and other OTC members have determined that additional

NOx reductions may be necessary in some areas, in

combination with reduction of interstate transport, to

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 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 final-form rulemaking is reasonably necessary to attain and maintain

the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. The criteria for

adopting state regulations more stringent than Federal

regulations (when Federal regulations exist) are in section 4.2 of the APCA, (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.

The Senate Committee commented on the ability of the

Board to move forward with the regulation if the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.

Circuit Court) vacated the CAIR budget and allowance

system for NOx emissions in this Commonwealth and

other states. Their concern is that on July 11, 2008, the

D.C. Circuit Court overturned CAIR and specifically that

the D.C. Circuit Court found that the state NOx budgets

as determined by the EPA were ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ 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.

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. IRRC goes on to say that the D.C. Circuit

Court in its ruling stated that the analysis done by the

EPA was ‘‘fundamentally flawed’’ and that the EPA must

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3333

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
start its analysis anew. The Board disagrees with this

analysis. 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.

The D.C. Circuit Court decided to remand, not vacate, the

EPA’s CAIR in December 2008. The final Federal rule,

expected in 2011, must be revised to be consistent with

the D.C. Circuit Court’s July 11, 2008, decision in State of

North Carolina v. Environmental Protection Agency, 531

F.3d 896 (2008). The Board agrees that while the EPA’s

CAIR remains in place at this time, the EPA will propose

and finalize a replacement for CAIR that meets the

criteria set forth by the court. In light of the SIPapprovability issues raised by the EPA, the compliance

option to purchase and surrender CAIR NOx allowances

was deleted from the final-form regulation.

IRRC stated that the Board 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 ANFR or

publishing the changes as a new proposed rulemaking in

the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The Department agrees with

the commentator. The provisions of the final-form rulemaking contain significant changes from 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 Commonwealth’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 Board removed

from the final-form rulemaking the compliance option to

purchase CAIR NOx allowances. The Board 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, 34538. The

Board 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

Board believed further discussion and an additional comment period served the public interest. An ANFR to solicit

comments from the public on the draft final-form rulemaking was published at 39 Pa.B. 5318.

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 IRRC commented that the Board should

address this issue. The Board disagrees. Allowing multiple owners and operators of glass melting furnaces in

this Commonwealth to average their emissions in concert

with each other 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.

One commentator stated that the proposed rulemaking’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. The Board disagrees

with the commentator that the regulation should contain

a time requirement. The time frame 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). These monitoring-specific issues are not part of

individual rulemakings.

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 1 year until this

deadline, and that it does not provide adequate time

allowed for installation and operation of the CEMS. The

commentators suggest there should be a longer time

frame for the system to be installed and operational, and

suggest that May 1, 2010, should be the earliest implementation date for the CEMS. The Board agrees with the

commentators. A CEMS or alternate monitoring system or

method to determine compliance with the emission limits

specified in § 129.304(a) in the final-form 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 § 129.304(b) or (c) in the final-form rulemaking.

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.’’ The Board disagrees

with the commentator. The EPA’s CAIR requirements are

not applicable to this final-form rulemaking. In addition,

a CEMS or alternate monitoring system or method to

determine compliance with the emission limits specified

in § 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

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

One commentator stated that the ‘‘alternate NOx emissions monitoring system or method’’ referenced in the

proposed rulemaking should be further clarified to explain what is an allowable alternate system. The Board

disagrees with the commentator. An alternate NOx emissions system or method is not designed to be a prescribed

method or system.

A commentator stated that the start-up exemption time

of 104 days for a flat glass furnace is too short, and

suggests an additional 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. The Board agrees with the commentator with

respect to the start-up exemption time of 104 days for a

flat glass furnace. To be consistent with 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 § 129.305(d) for all types of

glass furnaces. For flat glass furnaces, the maximum

3334 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
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.

The commentator stated that 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. The

Board retains in the final-form rulemaking the furnace

start-up restriction under § 129.305(f) of ‘‘not to exceed

5% excess oxygen,’’ which is consistent with the furnace

start-up requirements in SJVAPCD Rule 4354.

The Committees commented to the Board on behalf of

one commentator 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. The Board revised this section of the

final-form rulemaking. Section 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.

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 Standard (NSPS) definition. The NSPS definition includes a

list of extraneous nonfurnace equipment that goes against

the intent of the proposed rulemaking that requires

monitoring NOx emissions from only the furnace. The

Board agrees with the commentator. The final-form rulemaking adopted the 2007 NESHAP definition of the term

‘‘glass melting furnace’’ that was published at 72 FR

73180 (December 26, 2007).

The definition of ‘‘furnace rebuild’’ is unclear and

appears to broaden the scope of repair activities that

currently require permitting, and the definition should

exclude rebricking activities as defined in 40 CFR Part

60, Subpart CC (relating to standards of performance for

glass manufacturing plants) and likewise exclude those

activities from permitting. The term ‘‘complete reconstruction’’ in the definition of ‘‘furnace rebuild’’ should be

stated as ‘‘reconstruction.’’ The Board agrees and made

the necessary changes.

The Committees commented to the Board that the

definition of ‘‘start-up’’ should be revised to be consistent

with the SJVAPCD Rule to include necessary language on

furnace stabilization, that is, the phrase ‘‘and systems

and instrumentation are brought to stabilization.’’ The

Board agrees with the commentator. The proposed definition of the term ‘‘start-up’’ in § 121.1 has been revised.

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. 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 Chapter 127, Subchapter B

(relating to plan approval requirements). The Board

added in § 121.1 in the final-form rulemaking a definition for ‘‘cold shutdown’’ and the final-form rulemaking

includes ‘‘scheduled’’ whenever ‘‘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 Board believes this will alleviate the concerns

about routine repairs to a furnace.

The selective catalytic reduction and selective

noncatalytic reduction 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 requested the Board to explicitly exclude its facility from the proposed rulemaking. The

Board disagrees with the commentator. The Board recognized that furnaces within this Commonwealth that

produce a glass product other than the four types listed

in the proposed rulemaking (flat, container, fiberglass and

pressed and blown) were not adequately considered in the

proposed rulemaking. As a result, the Board added under

§ 129.304 in the final-form rulemaking an emission limit

of 6.0 lbs NOx/ton of glass pulled for a glass melting

furnace that does not produce flat, container, fiberglass or

pressed and blown glass products. The Board, 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%.

The proposed rulemaking was 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 Board should clarify that it is inappropriate to apply the proposed rulemaking to them. The Board

disagrees with the commentator. The purpose of the

final-form rulemaking is to control NOx emissions from

glass melting furnaces. Applicability § 129.302 of the

final-form rulemaking clearly states that the provisions of

the rulemaking 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 would

apply.

The Committees and another commentator questioned

the legal authority of the Department and the Board to

require glass melting facilities to significantly reduce

NOx emissions under the APCA. The commentators also

stated that there is not a 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. The Board disagrees with the

commentators. The Board 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 under proper procedures; and (3) reasonable. See,

for example, Rohrbaugh v. PUC, 727 A.2d 1080 (1999)

and Housing Authority v. Pa. Civil Service Com’n, 730

A.2d 935 (1999). Section 5 of the APCA provides that the

Board will adopt rules and regulations for the prevention,

control, reduction and abatement of air pollution, applicable throughout this Commonwealth. Clearly the intent

of this regulation is to reduce air pollution, and so

therefore the Board has the requisite legal authority. The

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3335

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
Board is proceeding with this rulemaking through the

proper rulemaking procedures, as identified under the

APCA, the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. §§ 745.1—

745.12) and the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769, No. 240)

(45 P. S. § 1204(3)), known as the Commonwealth Documents Law (CDL). 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 final-form rulemaking

reduces pollution, it is reasonable.

The Committees and another commentator stated that

the proposed rulemaking 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. The Board disagrees with the commentator. The Department disagrees with the commentator. A demonstration using air dispersion modeling (pointsource 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. Moreover, a finding that emission

reductions at one source of NOx does not contribute to

the failure of a 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 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. The Department maintains that an atmospheric dispersion model

such as CALPUFF is not appropriate to use to determine

an ozone concentration because ozone is formed chemically and not solely by dispersion. Atmospheric chemistry

plays a role in ozone formation, and modeling just the

NOx emissions, as is the case with CALPUFF, does not

address this atmospheric chemistry. Certain areas of this

Commonwealth continue to exceed the health-based 1997

8-hour NAAQS for ozone. See 62 FR 38855. The finalform 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. However, the EPA has reconsidered the 2008 ozone

NAAQS and published a proposed rulemaking at 75 FR

2938 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.

If, as is widely expected, the EPA tightens the ozone

standard, the additional NOx emissions from the finalform rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will be even

more important than if the current ozone standard remains in place.

Nevertheless, the final-form rulemaking provides a

petition process, rather than a variance, for an alternative emission limitation compliance deadline to the owner

or operator of a glass melting furnace that demonstrates

to the Department’s satisfaction that it is economically or

technologically infeasible to meet the NOx emission limitations in § 129.304(a). The alternative emission limitation must be included in either a plan approval or an

operating permit issued by the Department or a permit

issued by the appropriate approved local air pollution

control agency. Moreover, this final-form rulemaking also

includes a petition process for an alternative compliance

schedule, rather than a variance, if an owner or operator

of a glass melting furnace demonstrates that compliance

with the NOx emission limitations will not be achieved by

the January 1, 2012, compliance date in § 129.304(b).

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

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.

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, 35715. 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, the regulation

is reasonably necessary to attain and maintain the

NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.

A commentator stated that the Board 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 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. The Board

disagrees with the commentator. The Board addressed the

benefits and the costs associated with the proposed

rulemaking in the preamble published at 38 Pa.B. 1831

(April 19, 2008).

The 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

Board believes that an exemption for a furnace malfunction or upset period is not required. The Department does

not routinely provide for exemptions from emission limits

from a source for periods of upset or malfunction in

regulations to control emissions from sources.

The Committees commented to the Board on behalf of

PPG Industries during the ANFR comment period that

the petition process described in § 129.304(b) and (c) of

the ANFR final-form rulemaking should specify what

factors the Department will consider for a glass melting

furnace to qualify for an alternative compliance deadline.

The Board believes the petition process in § 129.304(b)

and (c) of the final-form rulemaking is comprehensive but

not overly prescriptive and includes the factors suggested

3336 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
by the Committees. In addition, the Board 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.

Comments and Responses on the ANFR

As previously noted, an ANFR was published at 39

Pa.B. 5318 and the comment period closed on October 14,

2009. The draft final-form rulemaking contained significant changes in several areas, and the Department

believed that while not legally required, further discussion and an additional comment period would serve the

public interest. The most significant change made to the

draft final-form rulemaking concerned the NOx surrender

compliance option under § 129.309(c) which allowed for

the purchase of CAIR NOx allowances. Three additional

significant changes were made to the draft final-form

rulemaking regarding: 1) year-round compliance; 2) an

additional NOx emission limit applicable to the owner or

operator of a glass melting furnace that produces a glass

product that is other than flat, container, fiberglass or

pressed or blown; and 3) the final-form rulemaking

provides a petition process for an alternative NOx emission limitation to the owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace that demonstrates it is economically or technologically infeasible to meet the established emission limitations under § 129.304. The alternative NOx emission

limitation must be included in either a plan approval or

an operating permit issued by the Department or a

permit issued by the appropriate approved local air

pollution control agency. Moreover, this final-form rulemaking also includes a petition process for an alternative

compliance schedule to an owner or operator of any glass

melting furnace that demonstrates that compliance will

not be achieved by the January 1, 2012, compliance date

established in § 129.304(b).

Seventeen commentators submitted comments on the

ANFR: the Committees; the Allegheny County Health

Department (ACHD); two organizations; three legislators;

and eight glass companies.

A commentator supports the adoption of the NOx

emission limits for fiberglass plants consistent with the

4.0 lbs NOx/ton of glass pulled adopted by the OTC. The

Department appreciates the commentator’s support of the

draft final-rulemaking for fiberglass plants. The Department agrees with the commentator that the OTCrecommended emission limit of 4.0 lb NOx/ton of glass

pulled for fiberglass plants in the final-form rulemaking

achieves consistency and uniformity among the 13 members of the OTC and that the emission limit for fiberglass

furnaces can be achieved with technologies currently

available.

The commentator stated that it is an arbitrary and

capricious action to base the regulation’s proposed NOx

emission limits on a California rule without an explanation as to why they are appropriate to this Commonwealth. 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 multistate organization

created under section 184 of the CAA. 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 are required to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 80 ppb. See

62 FR 38855.

Additionally, 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. See 73 FR 16436. The 2008 revised standard

requires additional reductions of emissions of ozone precursors, including NOx, that impact each member’s

nonattainment status. As required by the CAA, the

Commonwealth submitted recommendations to the EPA

in 2009 to designate 29 counties as nonattainment for the

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA was expected to take

final action on the designation recommendations by

March 2010. However, the EPA reconsidered the 2008

ozone NAAQS and published a proposed rulemaking at 75

FR 2938 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. If, as is widely expected, the EPA tightens the

ozone standard, the additional NOx emissions reductions

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, 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 and 64 FR 35713,

35714. NOx emissions are precursors to the development

of PM2.5 and regional haze.

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, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode

Island) 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 emissions reductions from the control

measures, preliminary cost and cost-effectiveness 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’

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3337

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
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 recommends

that states may allow the owners or operators of glass

melting furnaces to propose compliance methods based on

California’s SJVAPCD Rule 4354 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 in this

Commonwealth and determined that proposing a glass

melting furnaces regulation based on the SJVAPCD Rule

4354 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.

The 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

SJVAPCD Rule 4354 so that there would be a level

playing field among the 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 or alternative emission limitation contained in the

petition process that is provided in § 129.304(b) and (c) of

the final-form rulemaking.

A commentator requested that the Department add to

the final-form rulemaking a definitive and feasible alternate standard or exemption applicable to unique specialty

glass operations such as theirs. The final-form rulemaking includes a petition process for an alternative

compliance schedule or alternative NOx emission limitation if an owner or operator of any glass melting furnace

demonstrates that compliance will not be achieved by the

January 1, 2012, compliance date.

Several commentators questioned why the draft finalform regulation only provided an alternative emission

limitation petition process in § 129.304(c) to the owners

and operators of glass melting furnaces that produce an

‘‘other’’ glass product. The final-form rulemaking includes

a petition process for an alternative compliance schedule

or alternative NOx emission limitation if an owner or

operator of a glass melting furnace that demonstrates

that compliance will not be achieved by the January 1,

2012, compliance date.

The Committees, several legislators and other commentators commented that the Department should consider

providing a variance procedure or exception from the

regulation for a glass melting furnace that definitively

demonstrates that its emissions are not materially contributing to the development of ground level ozone. The

Department maintains that 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 sourcespecific 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 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. The Department maintains that an atmospheric dispersion model such as CALPUFF is not appropriate to use to determine an ozone concentration because

ozone is formed chemically and not solely by dispersion.

Atmospheric chemistry plays a role in ozone formation,

and modeling just the NOx emissions, as is the case with

CALPUFF, does not address this atmospheric chemistry.’’

Moreover, 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. The NOx emissions reductions from

glass melting furnaces are a necessary component in this

regional strategy. Certain areas of this Commonwealth

continue to exceed the health-based 1997 8-hour NAAQS

for ozone. This 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 of 80 ppb in this Commonwealth

and downwind areas. See 62 FR 38855. 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. However, the EPA reconsidered the

2008 ozone NAAQS and published a proposed rulemaking

at 75 FR 2938 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. If, as is widely expected, the EPA tightens

the ozone standard, the additional NOx emissions reductions from the final-form rulemaking for glass melting

furnaces will be even more important than if the current

2008 ozone standard remains in place.

Nevertheless, the final-form rulemaking provides a

petition process, rather than a variance, for an alternative NOx emission limitation or compliance schedule to

the owner or operator of any glass melting furnace that

demonstrates it is economically or technologically infeasible to meet the NOx emission limitations specified in

§ 129.304(a). The alternative NOx emission limitation

must be included in either a plan approval or an operating permit issued by the Department or a permit issued

by the appropriate approved local air pollution control

agency. Moreover, this final-form rulemaking also includes a petition process for an alternative compliance

schedule, rather than a variance, to an owner or operator

of a glass melting furnace that demonstrates that compliance will not be achieved by the January 1, 2012,

compliance date.

This final-form rulemaking will also reduce concentrations of PM2.5 and the formation of 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. Additionally,

in 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.

The EPA is also evaluating the adequacy of the 2006

3338 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
PM2.5 NAAQS as part of its periodic review required

under section 109(d)(1) of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A.

§ 7409(d)(1)). Furthermore, when initially adopting the

visibility protection provisions of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress specifically recognized that the ‘‘visibility

problem is caused primarily by emission into the atmosphere of SO2, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter,

especially fine particulate matter, from inadequate[ly]

controlled sources.’’ See 64 FR 35713, 35715. Section

169A(a)(1) of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A. § 7491(a)(1)) sets

forth a National goal for visibility which is the ‘‘prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,

impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.’’ If adopted, the

NOx emission reduction provisions of the final-form rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will help to reduce

formation of ozone, PM2.5 and regional haze pollution in

this Commonwealth and throughout the OTR. As a result,

the regulation is reasonably necessary to attain and

maintain the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5

A primary comment made by numerous commentators,

including the Committees, is that to avoid possible economic disruption to the operations at the affected furnaces, the Department should allow an existing furnace

to operate through its full life cycle before requiring it to

be replaced or rebuilt with control technology to meet the

regulation’s NOx emission limits. The commentators suggest that it may assist the Department as well as the

regulated industry to not base the compliance time frame

on a specific date. The commentators also state that other

states permit furnaces to be upgraded after their normal

and anticipated life expectancy has been exhausted. The

Department disagrees with the commentators. The Department agrees that it could possibly be infeasible for all

affected owners or operators of glass melting furnaces to

comply with the allowable emission limits by January 1,

2012. In recognition of this, § 129.304(b) in the final-form

rulemaking provides a process to all glass melting furnace owners and operators to petition the Department 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-by-case basis as determined

through the petition process for an alternative compliance

schedule under § 129.304(c). Moreover, the EPA would

not approve revisions to the California SIP contained in

the SJVAPCD Rule addressing NOx emissions from glass

melting furnaces, because the Compliance Schedule section of the rule did not specify a final date for facilities to

achieve full compliance with the emission limits specified

in the rule’s requirements section. See 67 FR 20078 (April

24, 2002). As a result, the Department believes that a

final compliance date specified in the final-form regulation is necessary to receive SIP approval from the EPA.

Several commentators commented that the petition

process described in § 129.304(b) and (c) of the draft final

rulemaking should specify what factors the Department

will consider for the owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace to qualify for an alternative compliance deadline.

The Department believes the petition process in

§ 129.304(b) and (c) is comprehensive but not overly

prescriptive and includes all the factors suggested by the

commentators. In addition, the Department revised this

section in the final-form rulemaking to require submittal

of a petition request to, and not approval by, the Department by January 1, 2012, rather than approval by

January 1, 2011. The Department maintains that the

concerns expressed by the commentators 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.

A comment was made requesting that the short-term

applicability criteria for a furnace that emits NOx at

greater than 20 pounds per hour, but otherwise emits

below 50 tons per year of NOx, be deleted from the

final-form rulemaking. The Department agrees with the

commentator in that applying the regulation to these

unique glass melting operations will not result in significant overall emission reductions. Section 129.302 in the

final-form rulemaking has been revised to include only

owners and operators of furnaces that emit NOx at

greater than 50 tons per year as subject to the regulation.

The ACHD commented that the final-form rulemaking

should be modified to state that the regulation applies to

furnaces in the jurisdiction of a local air pollution control

agency, and for ACHD to implement the provisions of the

regulation, all reports and notifications required under

the regulation should be submitted directly to the local

agency. The Department agrees with the commentator,

and the change has been made.

One commentator stated that the exemptions section

should be revised to require that the owner or operator of

a glass melting furnace notify the Department within 24

hours after the initiation of an exemption operation,

instead of within 24 hours prior to initiating the operation, because there are some instances where an unforeseen problem requires a facility to immediately go into an

unanticipated idling position. The Department agrees

with the commentator, and that change has been made.

One commentator stated that the timing of written

notification to the Department contained in the exemptions in § 129.303 not be tied to the occurrence of the

exemption event itself. The Department disagrees with

the commentator. The Department maintains that the

requirement in § 129.303(b) to notify the Department

within 24 hours of initiating the exempt operation, and

the requirement in § 129.303(d) to notify the Department

in writing within 24 hours after completion of the exempt

operation, is reasonable and not burdensome to the

facility claiming the exemption.

Several commentators commented 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. Comments were

also made 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. The Department believes that an

exemption for a furnace malfunction or upset period is

not required. The Department does not routinely provide

for exemptions from emission limits for periods of upset

or malfunction in regulations to control emissions from

sources.

Several commentators commented that the furnace

start-up section should be modified to require a plan

approval application for a start-up exemption only ‘‘if

required’’ and not for activities associated with routine

repair or maintenance of the furnace. The Department

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3339

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
has revised this section of the final-form rulemaking.

Section 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.

Commentators note that 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. The Department retains in the final-form rulemaking the furnace

start-up restriction in § 129.305(f) of ‘‘not to exceed 5%

excess oxygen,’’ which is consistent with the furnace

start-up requirements in SJVAPCD Rule 4354.

Several commentators commented that the definition of

the term ‘‘start-up’’ should be revised consistent with

SJVAPCD Rule 4354 to include necessary language on

furnace stabilization, that is, the phrase ‘‘and systems

and instrumentation are brought to stabilization.’’ The

Department agrees with the commentators, and that

change was made.

Two commentators commented that the definition of

‘‘rebricking’’ and the revised definition of ‘‘furnace rebuild’’

in the draft final-form rulemaking are confusing, and

further comment that they have concern over whether

routine repairs to a furnace would be considered a rebuild

or rebrick of the furnace. The Department agrees with

the commentators and deleted both definitions in the

final-form rulemaking and has added a definition for ‘‘cold

shutdown,’’ and included ‘‘scheduled’’ whenever ‘‘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.

Several commentators commented that the data substitution method for emissions monitoring in the compliance

determination section that requires the highest valid

1-hour emission value during the reporting quarter be

substituted for invalidated data is unreasonable and

punitive. They comment further that for periods of invalid

data, the Department should allow substituting data that

is more representative of the actual emissions. The

Department agrees with the commentators, and revised

the data substitution method in the final-form rulemaking to require the highest valid 1-hour value that

occurred under similar source operating conditions during

the reporting quarter be substituted for the invalidated

data.

Several commentators commented that the requirements in §§ 129.308 and 129.309 to report CEMS data

and daily glass production data on a quarterly basis are

inconsistent with existing Title V reporting requirements

and create a duplicative and burdensome additional

reporting obligation on the regulated community. The

Department disagrees with the commentators. The Department does not believe that maintaining records of

daily glass production will present a significant inconvenience to owners or operators. Daily records may be

needed to enable the Department to verify the relationship between NOx emissions recorded by CEMS, and

glass produced during the compliance period. Records

sufficiently precise to quantify glass produced by each

glass melting furnace during a reporting quarter are

necessary to enable owners and operators to demonstrate

compliance. Continuous emission monitoring is the most

precise means of determining emissions over extended

time periods.

Several commentators requested the Department work

with the regulated industry in a transparent manner so

that the true benefits and costs of the regulation will be

known. The commentators further state that although the

Department asserts several times in the preamble to the

proposed NOx regulation that reducing NOx emissions

will also result in reduced emissions of fine particulate

matter, they have not provided the regulated community

with data or information that supports this assertion. The

Department’s commitment to transparency is supported

by its decision to publish an ANFR on the draft final-form

regulation. The EPA, in its ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle

Implementation Rule,’’ determined that NOx emissions

are precursors to the formation of PM2.5. See 72 FR

20586. In November 2009, the EPA designated 6 areas

(all or part of 22 counties) as not attaining the 2006

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688. Therefore, the

adoption of the final-form rulemaking for glass melting

furnaces will help to reduce formation of PM2.5 and is

reasonably necessary to attain and maintain the PM2.5

NAAQS.

A commentator stated that the Department did not

adequately address, while drafting and promulgating the

proposed rulemaking and in accordance with Executive

Order 1996-1, whether the costs of the regulation exceed

its benefits or not, and also that the proposed rulemaking

does not support a conclusion that its costs will not

exceed the benefits, and therefore the cost/benefit analysis must be provided. The commentator states further

that the Board acknowledges in the ANFR that the EPA

advised the Commonwealth that the EPA’s CAIR does not

apply to glass melting furnaces, and therefore the draft

final-form rulemaking imposes requirements on glass

melting furnaces that are more stringent than Federal

standards. 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 at 38 Pa.B. 1831. The purpose of this final-form

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. Moreover, this final-form rulemaking is reasonably

necessary to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone

NAAQS.

The commentator stated that the Board acknowledges

in the ANFR that the EPA advised the Commonwealth

that CAIR does not apply to glass melting furnaces, and

therefore the draft final-form rulemaking imposes requirements on glass melting furnaces that are more

stringent than Federal standards. The purpose of the

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 from the EGU sector. In fact, this Commonwealth

3340 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
and other OTC members determined that additional NOx

reductions may be necessary in some areas, in combination with reduction of interstate transport, to attain and

maintain the NAAQS. In addition to the PM2.5 NAAQS,

this final-form 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 section 4.2 of the APCA. 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.

A commentator commented that the final-form rulemaking violates section 4.2 of the APCA, because section

4.2 of the APCA restricts the Board to adopting by

regulation ‘‘. . . only those control measures or other requirements which are reasonably required, in accordance

with the Clean Air Act deadlines, to achieve and maintain

the ambient air quality standards or to satisfy related

Clean Air Act requirements . . . .’’ They further quote

section 4.2 of the APCA: ‘‘Control measures or other

requirements adopted under subsection (a) of this section

shall be no more stringent than those required by the

Clean Air Act unless authorized or required by this act or

specifically required by the Clean Air Act.’’ The commentator maintains that NOx emissions from glass melting

furnaces are not currently regulated by the EPA, so

therefore this rulemaking is prohibited by section 4.2 of

the APCA since it is more stringent than required by the

CAA. The Department disagrees with the commentator.

The Department has the legal authority to require 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 under proper procedures; and (3) reasonable.

See for example, Rohrbaugh v. PUC, 727 A.2d 1080

(1999); and Housing Authority v. Pa. Civil Service Com’n,

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 this Commonwealth. Clearly

the intent of this 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 CDL. 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 final-form rulemaking reduces pollution

it is reasonable.

The commentator indicated the Department should

consider development of a pool of surplus NOx ‘‘credits’’

from glass melting furnaces and allow trading and use of

these credits by owners and operators of glass melting

furnaces to demonstrate compliance with the regulation,

in light of the elimination of using CAIR NOx allowances

as a compliance option in the draft final-form rulemaking.

The Department disagrees with the commentator. Subsequent to the closing of the public comment period on June

23, 2008, 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

Department therefore removed from the draft final-form

regulation the compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx

allowances.

G. Benefits, Costs and Compliance

Benefits

Overall, the citizens of this Commonwealth will benefit

from this final-form rulemaking because these amendments will result in improved air quality by reducing

ozone and PM2.5 precursor emissions. The final-form

rulemaking will also encourage the development of new

technologies and practices, which will reduce emissions of

NOx.

Compliance Costs

The owners and operators of glass melting furnaces in

this Commonwealth will be required to install and operate an emissions monitoring system or equipment necessary for an emissions monitoring method to comply with

the final-form rulemaking. If an owner or operator elects

to install and operate a CEMS, the cost could be as high

as $300,000. However, the final-form rulemaking provides

for the installation and operation of an alternate emissions monitoring system or method approved by the

Department, in writing, which could significantly reduce

the monitoring costs. The estimated cost of the alternate

emissions monitoring system or method, if elected by an

owner or operator of a glass melting furnace, would cost

approximately $100,000, and would include any one of a

number of alternatives including computer modeling or a

predictive emissions monitoring system.

Compliance Assistance Plan

The Department plans to educate and assist the public

and regulated community in understanding the newly

revised requirements and how to comply with them. This

will be accomplished through the Department’s ongoing

compliance assistance program.

Paperwork Requirements

The final-form rulemaking will not significantly increase the paperwork that is already generated during

the normal course of business operations.

H. Pollution Prevention

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.A.

§§ 13101—13109) established a National policy that promotes pollution prevention as the preferred means for

achieving state environmental protection goals. The Department encourages pollution prevention, which is the

reduction or elimination of pollution at its source, through

the substitution of environmentally friendly materials,

more efficient use of raw materials and the incorporation

of energy efficiency strategies. Pollution prevention practices can provide greater environmental protection with

greater efficiency because they can result in significant

cost savings to facilities that permanently achieve or

move beyond compliance. This final-form rulemaking

provides the owners and operators of glass melting

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3341

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
furnaces the opportunity to improve the energy efficiency

of their operations, which will result in lower NOx

emissions.

I. Sunset Review

This final-form rulemaking will be reviewed in accordance with the sunset review schedule published by the

Department to determine whether the regulation effectively fulfills the goals for which it was intended.

J. Regulatory Review

Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71

P. S. § 745.5(a)), on April 7, 2008, the Department submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking,

published at 38 Pa.B. 1831, to IRRC and the Committees

for review and comment.

Under section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC

and the Committees were provided with copies of the

comments received during the public comment period, as

well as other documents when requested. In preparing

the final-form rulemaking, the Department has considered all comments from IRRC, the Committees and the

public.

Under section 5.1(j.2) of the Regulatory Review Act

(71 P. S. § 745.5a(j.2)), on May 12, 2010, the final-form

rulemaking was deemed approved by the Committees.

Under section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC

met on May 13, 2010, and approved the final-form

rulemaking.

K. Findings

The Board finds that:

(1) Public notice of proposed rulemaking was given

under sections 201 and 202 of the CDL (45 P. S. §§ 1201

and 1202) and regulations promulgated thereunder at 1

Pa. Code §§ 7.1 and 7.2.

(2) At least a 60-day public comment period was

provided as required by law and all comments were

considered.

(3) These regulations do not enlarge the purpose of the

proposal published at 38 Pa.B. 1831.

(4) These regulations are necessary and appropriate for

administration and enforcement of the authorizing acts

identified in Section C of this order.

(5) These regulations are reasonably necessary to attain and maintain the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

L. Order

The Board, acting under the authorizing statutes,

orders that:

(a) The regulations of the Department, 25 Pa. Code

Chapters 121 and 129, are amended by amending § 121.1

and by adding §§ 129.301—129.310 to read as set forth in

Annex A, with ellipses referring to the existing text of the

regulations.

(b) The Chairperson of the Board shall submit this

order and Annex A to the Office of General Counsel and

the Office of Attorney General for review and approval as

to legality and form, as required by law.

(c) The Chairperson of the Board shall submit this

order and Annex A to IRRC and the Committees as

required by the Regulatory Review Act.

(d) The Chairperson of the Board shall certify this

order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative

Reference Bureau as required by law.

(e) This final-form rulemaking will be submitted to the

EPA as an amendment to the Pennsylvania SIP.

(f) This order shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

JOHN HANGER,

Chairperson

(Editor’s Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission relating to this

document, see 40 Pa.B. 2838 (May 29, 2010).)

Fiscal Note: Fiscal Note 7-420 remains valid for the

final adoption of the subject regulations.

Annex A

TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL

RESOURCES

ARTICLE III. AIR RESOURCES

CHAPTER 121. GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 121.1. Definitions.

The definitions in section 3 of the act (35 P. S. § 4003)

apply to this article. In addition, the following words and

terms, when used in this article, have the following

meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

*****

Blown glass—Glassware shaped by blowing air into a

molten glass gather.

*****

Cold shutdown—A cold repair or replacement of damaged or worn refractory parts of a glass melting furnace

while the furnace does not contain molten glass.

*****

Container glass—Glass manufactured by pressing,

blowing in molds, drawing, rolling or casting which is

used as a container.

*****

Fiberglass—For purposes of §§ 129.301—129.310 (relating to control of NOx emissions from glass melting

furnaces), material consisting of fine filaments of glass

that are combined into yarn and woven or spun into

fabrics, or that are used as reinforcement in other

materials or in masses as thermal or as acoustical

insulating product.

*****

Flat glass—Glass produced by the float, sheet, rolled or

plate glass process which is used in windows, windshields, tabletops or similar products.

*****

Glass melting furnace—A unit comprising a refractorylined vessel in which raw materials are charged and

melted at high temperature to produce molten glass.

*****

Idling—For purposes of §§ 129.301—129.310, the operation of a glass melting furnace at less than 25% of the

permitted production capacity or fuel use capacity as

stated in the plan approval or operating permit.

*****

3342 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
Permitted production capacity—The maximum pull rate

as stated in the plan approval, operating permit or Title

V permit.

*****

Pressed glass—Glassware formed by placing a blob of

molten glass in a metal mold, then pressing it with a

metal plunger or ‘‘follower’’ to form the inside shape. The

resultant piece, termed ‘‘mold-pressed,’’ has an interior

form independent of the exterior, in contrast to moldblown glass, whose interior corresponds to the outer form.

*****

Primary furnace combustion system—The burners in a

glass melting furnace that are used during production of

glass.

*****

Pull rate—The amount of glass withdrawn from a glass

melting furnace, expressed in short tons per day.

*****

Shutdown—For purposes of §§ 129.301—129.310, the

period of time during which a glass melting furnace is

taken from an operational to a non-operational status by

allowing it to cool down from its operating temperature to

a cold or ambient temperature as the fuel supply is

turned off.

*****

Start-up—For purposes of §§ 129.301—129.310, the

period of time, after initial construction, shutdown or cold

shutdown, during which a glass melting furnace is heated

to stable operating temperature by the primary furnace

combustion system, and systems and instrumentation are

brought to stabilization.

*****

CHAPTER 129. STANDARDS FOR SOURCES

CONTROL OF NOx EMISSIONS FROM GLASS

MELTING FURNACES

§ 129.301. Purpose.

The purpose of this section and §§ 129.302—129.310 is

to annually limit the emissions of NOx from glass melting

furnaces.

§ 129.302. Applicability.

This section, § 129.301 (relating to purpose) and

§§ 129.303—129.310 apply to an owner or operator of a

glass melting furnace in this Commonwealth, including

those within the jurisdiction of local air pollution control

agencies in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties approved under section 12 of the act (35 P. S. § 4012), that

emits or has the potential to emit NOx at a rate greater

than 50 tons per year.

§ 129.303. Exemptions.

(a) The emission requirements in § 129.304 (relating to

emission requirements) do not apply during periods of

start-up, shutdown, or idling as defined in § 121.1 (relating to definitions), if the owner or operator complies with

the requirements in §§ 129.305, 129.306 and 129.307

(relating to start-up requirements; shutdown requirements; and idling requirements).

(b) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

claiming an exemption under subsection (a) shall notify

the Department or the appropriate approved local air

pollution control agency in writing within 24 hours after

initiation of the operation for which the exemption is

claimed. The methods for submitting the written notice

may include e-mail, hand or courier delivery, certified

mail or facsimile transmissions to the appropriate regional office described in § 121.4 (relating to regional

organization of the Department) or appropriate approved

local air pollution control agency. The notification must

include:

(1) The date and time of the start of the exempt

operation.

(2) The reason for performing the operation and an

estimated completion date.

(3) Identification of the emission control system operating during the exemption period.

(c) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

granted an exemption under this section shall maintain

operating records or documentation, or both, necessary to

support the claim for the exemption. The records shall be

maintained for 5 years onsite and made available or

submitted to the Department or appropriate approved

local air pollution control agency, upon request.

(d) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

shall notify the Department or the appropriate approved

local air pollution control agencies in writing within 24

hours after completion of the operation for which the

exemption is claimed.

§ 129.304. Emission requirements.

(a) Except as specified in §§ 129.303, 129.304(c),

129.305, 129.306 and 129.307, the owner or operator of a

glass melting furnace may not operate the glass melting

furnace in a manner that results in NOx emissions in

excess of the following allowable limits or NOx emission

limits contained in the plan approval or operating permit,

whichever are lower:

(1) 4.0 pounds of NOx per ton of glass pulled for

container glass furnaces.

(2) 7.0 pounds of NOx per ton of glass pulled for

pressed or blown glass furnaces.

(3) 4.0 pounds of NOx per ton of glass pulled for

fiberglass furnaces.

(4) 7.0 pounds of NOx per ton of glass pulled for flat

glass furnaces.

(5) 6.0 pounds of NOx per ton of glass pulled for all

other glass melting furnaces.

(b) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

shall comply with subsection (a) by January 1, 2012,

unless a petition for an alternative emission limitation or

compliance schedule is submitted, in writing, to the

Department and appropriate approved local air pollution

control agency by January 1, 2012, in accordance with

subsection (c) and approved, in writing, by the Department or appropriate approved local air pollution control

agency.

(c) An owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

that does not meet the NOx emission limits specified

under this section by January 1, 2012, may petition the

Department and appropriate approved local air pollution

control agency for an alternative emission limitation or

compliance schedule as follows:

(1) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

subject to this section may submit, in writing, a petition

requesting an alternative emission limitation. The petition must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department and appropriate approved local air pollution control

agency that it is economically or technologically infeasible

to meet the emission limitation under this section. The

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3343

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
alternative emission limitation must be included in either

a plan approval or an operating permit issued by the

Department or a permit issued by the appropriate approved local air pollution control agency.

(2) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace for

which the schedule for cold shutdown does not allow

compliance by January 1, 2012 may submit a petition, in

writing, requesting an alternative compliance schedule.

The alternative compliance schedule for a cold shutdown

which occurs after June 19, 2010, may not be extended

beyond 180 days from the start-up of the furnace after

the cold shutdown, unless approved, in writing, by the

Department.

(3) A petition must include the following:

(i) A brief description, including make, model and

location, of each affected glass melting furnace.

(ii) A list of all air pollution control technologies and

measures that have been installed on each affected glass

melting furnace and are operating to control emissions of

NOx.

(iii) The date of installation and original commencement of operation for each of the technologies and

measures listed in accordance with subparagraph (ii).

(iv) An explanation of how the NOx control technology

or measure installed has been optimized for the maximum NOx emission reduction for each of the technologies

and measures listed in accordance with subparagraph (ii).

(v) The results of each stack test and other emissions

measurements for the affected glass melting furnace

following the installation and commencement of operation

of the air pollution control technologies and measures

listed in accordance with subparagraph (ii).

(vi) The date of last scheduled cold shutdown for each

affected furnace.

(vii) The date of next scheduled cold shutdown of each

affected furnace.

(viii) Other relevant information requested, in writing,

by the Department or appropriate approved local air

pollution control agency.

(4) If an alternative compliance schedule is sought to

meet the requirements of this section, the owner or

operator shall submit a proposed schedule containing

proposed interim milestone dates for completing each

phase of the required work and a proposed final compliance date. The petition must also include a proposed

interim emission limitation until compliance is achieved

with the requirements specified in this section.

(5) If an alternative emission limitation is sought to

meet the requirements of this section, the conditions or

special circumstances which demonstrate that the applicable requirements are technologically or economically

infeasible.

(6) If an alternative emission limitation is sought to

meet the requirements of this section, the owner or

operator shall propose emission limitations in the petition.

(7) Approved interim milestone dates or emission limitations determined to be necessary for effective monitoring of progress toward full compliance with the requirements of this section, §§ 129.301—129.303 and 129.305—

129.310 shall be specified in a plan approval or operating

permit issued by the Department or a permit issued by

the appropriate approved local air pollution control

agency.

(d) During routine maintenance of an add-on emission

control system or systems, or maintenance or repair

measures on furnace components, the owner or operator

of a glass melting furnace subject to the emission limits

specified under subsection (a) is exempt from these limits

if:

(1) All routine maintenance of an add-on emission

control system or maintenance or repair measures on

furnace components, or both, combined, in each calendar

year does not exceed 144 hours total.

(2) The routine maintenance or maintenance or repair

measure, or both, is conducted in a manner consistent

with good air pollution control practices for minimizing

emissions.

§ 129.305. Start-up requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of the glass melting furnace

shall submit, in writing, to the Department or appropriate approved local air pollution control agency, no later

than 30 days prior to the anticipated date of start-up,

information requested by the Department or appropriate

approved local air pollution control agency to assure

proper operation of the furnace. The information must

include the following:

(1) A detailed list of activities to be performed during

start-up and an explanation for the length of time needed

to complete each activity.

(2) A description of the material process flow rates and

system operating parameters and other information that

the owner or operator plans to evaluate during the

process optimization.

(b) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

may submit a request for a start-up exemption in conjunction with the plan approval application if required.

The actual length of the start-up exemption, if any, will

be determined by the Department or appropriate approved local air pollution control agency at the time of the

issuance of the plan approval or operating permit.

(c) The length of the start-up exemption following

activation of the primary furnace combustion system may

not exceed:

(1) Seventy days for a container, pressed or blown glass

furnace.

(2) Forty days for a fiberglass furnace.

(3) One hundred and four days for a flat glass furnace

and for all other glass melting furnaces not covered under

paragraphs (1) and (2).

(d) The requirements of subsection (c) notwithstanding,

if the NOx control system is not in common use or is not

readily available from a commercial supplier, the length

of the maximum start-up exemption following activation

of the primary furnace combustion system is as follows:

(1) One hundred days for a container, pressed or blown

glass furnace.

(2) One hundred and five days for a fiberglass furnace.

(3) Two hundred and eight days for a flat glass furnace

and for all other glass melting furnaces not covered under

paragraphs (1) and (2).

(e) The Department or appropriate approved local air

pollution control agency may approve start-up exemptions, as appropriate, to the extent that the submittal

clearly:

(1) Identifies the control technologies or strategies to

be used.

3344 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
(2) Describes the physical conditions that prevail during start-up periods that prevent the controls from being

effective.

(3) Provides a reasonably precise estimate as to when

physical conditions will have reached a state that allows

for the effective control of emissions.

(f) During the start-up period, the owner or operator of

a glass melting furnace shall maintain the stoichiometric

ratio of the primary furnace combustion system so as not

to exceed 5% excess oxygen, as calculated from the actual

fuel and oxidant flow measurements for combustion in

the glass melting furnace.

(g) The owner or operator shall place the emission

control system in operation as soon as technologically

feasible during start-up to minimize emissions.

§ 129.306. Shutdown requirements.

(a) The duration of a glass melting furnace shutdown,

as measured from the time the furnace operations drop

below 25% of the permitted production capacity or fuel

use capacity to when all emissions from the furnace

cease, may not exceed 20 days.

(b) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

shall operate the emission control system whenever technologically feasible, as approved by the Department or

appropriate approved local air pollution control agency,

during shutdown to minimize emissions.

§ 129.307. Idling requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

shall operate the emission control system whenever technologically feasible, as approved by the Department or

appropriate approved local air pollution control agency,

during idling to minimize emissions.

(b) The NOx emissions during idling may not exceed

the amount calculated using the following equation:

Pounds per day emission limit of NOx = (Applicable

NOx emission limit specified in § 129.304(a) (relating

to emission requirements) expressed in pounds per

ton of glass produced) x (Furnace permitted production capacity in tons of glass produced per day)

§ 129.308. Compliance determination.

(a) Not later than 14 days prior to the applicable

compliance date under § 129.304(b) or (c), the owner or

operator of a glass melting furnace subject to this section,

§§ 129.301—129.307, 129.309 and 129.310 shall install,

operate and maintain continuous emissions monitoring

systems (CEMS, as defined in § 121.1 (relating to definitions)) for NOx and other monitoring systems to convert

data to required reporting units in compliance with

Chapter 139, Subchapter C (relating to requirements for

source monitoring for stationary sources) and calculate

actual emissions using the CEMS data reported to the

Department. The owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace may install or operate, or both, an alternate NOx

emissions monitoring system or method, approved in

writing by the Department or appropriate approved local

air pollution control agency.

(b) Data invalidated under Chapter 139, Subchapter C,

shall be substituted with the following if approved in

writing by the Department or appropriate approved local

air pollution control agency:

(1) The highest valid 1-hour emission value that occurred under similar source operating conditions during

the reporting quarter.

(2) If no valid data were collected during the reporting

quarter, one of the following shall be reported to the

Department or appropriate approved local air pollution

control agency:

(i) The highest valid 1-hour emission value that occurred under similar source operating conditions during

the most recent quarter for which valid data were

collected.

(ii) The highest valid 1-hour emission value that occurred under similar source operating conditions during

an alternative reporting period.

(3) An alternative method of data substitution.

(c) Instead of data substitution, the Department or

appropriate approved local air pollution control agency

may approve an alternative procedure to quantify NOx

emissions and glass production.

(d) The owner or operator of a glass furnace subject to

this section shall submit to the Department or the

appropriate approved local air pollution control agencies

quarterly reports of CEMS monitoring data in pounds of

NOx emitted per hour, in a format approved by the

Department and in compliance with Chapter 139,

Subchapter C, or a format approved by the appropriate

approved local air pollution control agencies.

(e) The CEMS or approved monitoring system or

method for NOx installed under this section must meet

the minimum data availability requirements in Chapter

139, Subchapter C.

§ 129.309. Compliance demonstration.

(a) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

shall calculate and report to the Department or appropriate approved local air pollution control agency on a

quarterly basis, no later than 30 days after the end of the

quarter, the CEMS data and glass production data used

to show compliance with the allowable NOx emission

limitation specified in § 129.304 (relating to emission

requirements). The glass production data must consist of

the quantity of glass, in tons, pulled per day for each

furnace.

(b) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

shall demonstrate compliance with the emission requirements of § 129.304(a) using one of the following methods:

(1) On a furnace-by-furnace basis.

(2) Facility-wide emissions averaging.

(3) System-wide emissions averaging among glass melting furnaces under common control of the same owner or

operator in this Commonwealth.

(c) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace for

which the Department or the appropriate approved local

air pollution control agency has granted approval to

voluntarily opt into a market-based program may not

demonstrate compliance on an emissions averaging basis

under subsection (b). An emission reduction obtained by

emissions averaging to demonstrate compliance with the

emission requirements of § 129.304(a) will not be considered surplus for emission reduction credit purposes. The

owner or operator of a glass melting furnace shall

demonstrate compliance with the emission requirements

of § 129.304(a) in accordance with subsection (d).

(d) Compliance with the emission requirements of

§ 129.304(a) shall be determined on a 30-day rolling

average basis.

RULES AND REGULATIONS 3345

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010
§ 129.310. Recordkeeping.

(a) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

subject to this section and §§ 129.301—129.309 shall

maintain records to demonstrate compliance. The records

must include an operating log maintained for each glass

melting furnace that includes, on a daily basis:

(1) The total hours of operation.

(2) The type and quantity of fuel used.

(3) The quantity of glass pulled.

(b) The owner or operator of a glass melting furnace

shall maintain records of:

(1) Source tests and operating parameters established

during the initial source test.

(2) Maintenance, repairs, malfunctions, idling, start-up

and shutdown.

(c) The owner or operator claiming that a glass melting

furnace is exempt from the requirements of §§ 129.301—

129.309 based on the furnace’s potential to emit shall

maintain records that clearly demonstrate to the Department or appropriate approved local air pollution control

agency that the furnace is not subject to §§ 129.301—

129.309.

(d) The records required under this section shall be

maintained onsite for 5 years. The records shall be made

available or submitted to the Department or appropriate

approved local air pollution control agency upon request.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-1114. Filed for public inspection June 18, 2010, 9:00 a.m.]

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

[ 25 PA. CODE CH. 145 ]

Control of NOx Emissions from Cement Kilns

The Environmental Quality Board (Board) amends

Chapter 145 (relating to interstate pollution transport

reduction) to read as set forth in Annex A.

This order was adopted by the Board order at its

meeting of March 16, 2010.

A. Effective Date

This final-form rulemaking will be effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

This final-form rulemaking will be submitted to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as

a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan

(SIP).

B. Contact Persons

For further information, contact Jane Mahinske, Air

Quality Program Specialist, Division of Air Resource

Management, Bureau of Air Quality, 12th Floor, Rachel

Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box 8468, Harrisburg,

PA 17105-8468, (717) 787-9495; or Robert ‘‘Bo’’ Reiley,

Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, 9th

Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box

8464, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, (717) 787-7060.

C. Statutory Authority

This final-form rulemaking is being adopted under the

authority of section 5(a)(1) of the Air Pollution Control

Act (35 P. S. § 4005(a)(1)), which grants to the Board the

authority to adopt regulations for the prevention, control,

reduction and abatement of air pollution.

D. Background and Summary

The purpose of this final-form rulemaking is to reduce

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from cement kilns to

reduce levels of ground-level ozone. Ground-level ozone is

not directly emitted by pollution sources, but is created as

a result of the chemical reaction of NOx and volatile

organic compounds in the presence of light and heat. The

reduction of NOx emissions will also help protect the

public health from high levels of fine particulate matter

(PM2.5), of which NOx is a precursor component. Fine

particulates, as well as ozone, are health hazards. The

reduction of NOx emissions also reduces visibility impairment and acid deposition.

When ground-level ozone is present in concentrations in

excess of the Federal health-based standards, public

health is adversely affected. The EPA has concluded that

there is an association between ambient ozone concentrations and increased hospital admissions for respiratory

ailments, such as asthma. Further, although children, the

elderly and those with respiratory problems are most at

risk, even healthy individuals may experience increased

respiratory ailments and other symptoms when they are

exposed to ambient ozone while engaged in activity that

involves physical exertion. Though these symptoms are

often temporary, repeated exposure could result in permanent lung damage. The implementation of additional

measures to address ozone air quality nonattainment in

this Commonwealth, including the reduction of NOx

emissions from cement kilns, is necessary to protect the

public health.

The Commonwealth, along with Connecticut, Delaware,

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia,

and the District of Columbia, are members of the Ozone

Transport Commission (OTC), which was created under

section 184 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 7511c) to

develop and implement regional solutions to the groundlevel ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic

regions. To date, states from the OTC, including the

Commonwealth, have established a number of regulatory

programs to reduce ozone precursor emissions, including

programs related to portable fuel containers, architectural

and industrial maintenance coatings and consumer products. Consistent with its strategy to achieve equitable

ozone precursor emission reductions from all industrial

sectors, the Commonwealth, along with other OTC states,

has met with representatives of the cement industry to

discuss reductions of NOx emissions from their kilns.

In this Commonwealth there are 21 cement kilns,

which in 2005 emitted 12,967 tons of NOx emissions in

this Commonwealth. Of these 21 kilns in this Commonwealth, 14 of them are ‘‘long’’ kilns. These are older

technology kilns that are less energy efficient than

preheater kilns and the newest technology, precalciner

kilns. The higher energy efficiencies of the preheater and

precalciner kilns result in inherently lower NOx emissions than those from long wet and dry kilns, per ton of

product.

Control technologies are readily available to achieve

NOx emission reductions of greater than 20% from cement kilns. These technologies include: conversion to

indirect firing systems with low-NOx burners with approximately 20—30% reduction; midkiln firing of whole

tires in long kilns with approximately 20—40% reduction;

staged combustion in precalciner kilns with approxi3346 RULES AND REGULATIONS

PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 40, NO. 25, JUNE 19, 2010