40970 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

preempt tribal law. Thus Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 18, 2017. 

Catherine R. McCabe, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18290 Filed 8–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9967–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT13 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin 

Lines Technology Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing amendments to previous 

proposals to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category. In the 

July 29, 2015, final rulemaking, the EPA 

deferred action on previously proposed 

formaldehyde, methanol and phenol 

emission limits from rotary spin (RS) 

lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities. In this action, the EPA is 

proposing to readopt the existing 

emission limits for formaldehyde, to 

establish emission limits for methanol, 

and to establish a work practice 

standard for phenol emissions from 

bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities. In addition, the 

EPA is proposing amendments to the 

emission limits promulgated on July 29, 

2015, for formaldehyde, methanol, and 

phenol from flame attenuation (FA) 

lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities. The EPA is only taking 

comments on the specific proposed 

requirements and revisions set forth in 

this proposed rulemaking, which are 

based on information contained in this 

proposal. The EPA is not taking 

comment on any aspect of previous 

rulemakings, including the November 

25, 2011, April 15, 2013, and November 

13, 2014, proposals. 

DATES: The EPA must receive written 

comments on this proposed rule on or 

before October 13, 2017. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested by September 5, 2017, then 

we will hold a public hearing on 

September 13, 2017. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the 

public hearing will be September 11, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Public Hearing. If a hearing is 

requested, it will be held at the EPA 

WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. If 

a public hearing is requested, then we 

will provide additional details about the 

public hearing on our Web site at 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/wool-fiberglassmanufacturing-national-emissionsstandards. To request a hearing, to 

register to speak at a hearing, or to 

inquire if a hearing will be held, please 

contact Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541– 

1063 or by email at stclair.aimee@

epa.gov. The EPA does not intend to 

publish any future notices in the 

Federal Register regarding a public 

hearing on this proposed action and 

directs all inquiries regarding a hearing 

to the Web site and contact person 

identified above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Brian Storey, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

04), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–1103; fax 

number: (919) 541–5450; email address: 

storey.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this rulemaking under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at https:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1042. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

https://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through https://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40971 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Public Hearing. If requested by 

September 5, 2017, a public hearing will 

be held on September 13, 2017 at the 

EPA WJC East Building, 1201 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20004. If a public hearing is 

requested, then we will provide 

additional details about the public 

hearing on our Web site at https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/wool-fiberglassmanufacturing-national-emissionsstandards. In addition, you may contact 

Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541–1063 or 

email at stclair.aimee@epa.gov with 

public hearing inquiries. The last day to 

pre-register to speak at a hearing, if one 

is held, will be September 11, 2017. 

Additionally, requests to speak will be 

taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. Please note that 

registration requests received before the 

hearing will be confirmed by the EPA 

via email. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. If the hearing is held at a 

U.S. governmental facility, individuals 

planning to attend the hearing should be 

prepared to show valid picture 

identification to the security staff to gain 

access to the meeting room. Please note 

that the REAL ID Act, passed by 

Congress in 2005, established new 

requirements for entering federal 

facilities. If your driver’s license is 

issued by Alaska, American Samoa, 

California, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, 

New York, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Texas, Virgin Islands, Virginia, 

or the state of Washington, you must 

present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal 

building. Acceptable alternative forms 

of identification include: Federal 

employee badges, passports, enhanced 

driver’s licenses, and military 

identification cards. In addition, you 

will need to obtain a property pass for 

any personal belongings you bring with 

you. Upon leaving the building, you 

will be required to return this property 

pass to the security desk. No large signs 

will be allowed in the building, cameras 

may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be 

allowed on federal property for security 

reasons. 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

BACT best available control technology 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CD–ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FA lame attenuation 

FR Federal Register 

FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

ICR information collection request 

LAER lowest achievable emission rate 

lb/ton pounds per ton 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NRDC Natural Resource Defense Council 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PF phenol-formaldehyde 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RS rotary spin 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

tpy tons per year 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the regulatory history for wool 

fiberglass manufacturing? 

C. What is the purpose of this proposal? 

III. What are the proposed rule requirements 

for RS lines and what is our rationale? 

A. What are the proposed rule 

requirements for formaldehyde 

emissions from bonded RS lines? 

B. What are the proposed rule 

requirements for methanol emissions 

from bonded RS lines? 

C. What are the proposed rule 

requirements for phenol emissions from 

bonded RS lines? 

IV. What are the proposed rule amendments 

resulting from our technology review 

and our proposed decisions? 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions for formaldehyde emissions 

from RS lines based on our technology 

review? 

B. What are the proposed requirements for 

methanol emissions from RS lines? 

C. What are the proposed requirements for 

phenol emissions from RS lines? 

D. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

V. What other changes are we proposing to 

the NESHAP in this action? 

VI. What are the proposed amendments 

applicable to FA lines? 

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and 

Economic Impacts 

A. How many sources are affected? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

NESHAP and associated regulated 

industrial source category that is the 

subject of this proposal. Table 1 of this 

preamble is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding the entities likely 

to be affected by this proposed action. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
40972 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS code 1

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................... Subpart NNN 327993 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

The proposed standards, once 

promulgated, will be directly applicable 

to the affected sources. Federal, state, 

local, and tribal government entities are 

not affected by this proposed action. 

In 1992, the EPA defined the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category as any facility engaged in 

producing wool fiberglass from sand, 

feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous 

borax, boric acid, or any other materials. 

In the wool fiberglass manufacturing 

process, molten glass is formed into 

fibers that are bonded with an organic 

resin to create a wool-like material that 

is used as thermal or acoustical 

insulation. The category includes, but is 

not limited to, the following processes: 

Glass-melting furnace, marble forming, 

refining, fiber forming, binder 

application, curing, and cooling. 

Facilities produce bonded building 

insulation using an RS manufacturing 

line, and bonded pipe insulation and 

other heavy-density products using an 

FA manufacturing line. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

the proposed amendments, contact the 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the Internet. A redline 

version of the regulatory language that 

incorporates the proposed changes in 

this action is available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042). Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same Web 

site. Information on the overall residual 

risk and technology review (RTR) 

program is available at https://

www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

For comments on this proposal, do 

not submit information containing CBI 

to the EPA through https://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comments that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 301 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 

the CAA establishes a comprehensive 

regulatory process to address emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

stationary sources. In the first stage, 

after the EPA has identified categories of 

sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA 

section 112(d) requires us to promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit or have the potential to emit 10 

tons per year (tpy) or more of a single 

HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

the technology-based NESHAP must 

reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. Additionally, CAA section 

112(h) allows the agency to adopt a 

work practice standard in lieu of a 

numerical emission standard only if it is 

‘‘not feasible in the judgment of the 

Administrator to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard for control of a 

hazardous air pollutant.’’ This phrase is 

defined as applying where ‘‘the 

Administrator determines that the 

application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ CAA section 112(h)(1) and 

(2). 

The EPA is required to review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years. CAA 

section 112(d)(6). In conducting this 

review, the EPA is not required to 

recalculate the MACT floor. Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, 

Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

complete a technology review for RS 

lines in accordance with section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA. In addition, the 

EPA is proposing to amend certain 

emission limits promulgated on July 29, 

2015, as part of the RTR for the 

standards for FA lines at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities. 

B. What is the regulatory history for 

wool fiberglass manufacturing? 

The EPA promulgated the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on 

June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The 1999 

NESHAP, which is codified at 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart NNN, includes 

emissions standards for formaldehyde 

emissions from new and existing RS 

lines. On July 29, 2015, we published 

the final rule amendments to the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 

resulting from our completion of certain 

aspects of the CAA section 112(f)(2) 

residual risk review and the CAA 

section 112(d)(6) technology review for 

that NESHAP RTR. 80 FR 45280. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40973 

Specifically, the July 29, 2015, final 

rule: 

(1) Established a chromium emissions 

limit for gas-fired, glass-melting 

furnaces under CAA section 112(f)(2); 

(2) revised the particulate matter limit 

for gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at 

major sources under CAA section 

112(d)(6); 

(3) established work practice 

standards for hydrogen chloride and 

hydrogen fluoride emissions from glassmelting furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities under CAA 

section 112(h); 

(4) eliminated the use of 

formaldehyde as a surrogate and 

established revised limits for 

formaldehyde and first-time limits for 

methanol and phenol emitted from FA 

lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(d)(3); 

(5) eliminated FA line subcategories; 

(6) removed the exemption for startup 

and shutdown periods and established 

work practice standards that apply 

during startup and shutdown periods; 

and 

(7) established a chromium emission 

limits for both new and existing gasfired, glass-melting furnaces at area 

sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category under 

CAA section 112(d)(5). 

In the July 2015 rule, we did not 

finalize proposed emissions limits for 

formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

emissions from forming cooling and 

collection processes on bonded RS lines 

under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). 

We explained that this decision was 

based on comments we received on our 

various proposals indicating that the 

proposed limits likely relied on 

incorrect data. We explained that we 

had issued an Information Collection 

Request (ICR) under CAA section 114 

for purposes of obtaining the requisite 

data. 80 FR 45293. Since then, we have 

received and evaluated responses to the 

ICR. More recently, we have received 

new information and data from a facility 

that operates FA lines that cast doubts 

on information and data that the agency 

relied on in promulgating the July 2015 

final rule emissions limits for FA lines. 

C. What is the purpose of this proposal? 

This notice proposes the following 

amendments to the NESHAP for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category: 

• Readopting formaldehyde emission 

limits from bonded RS lines under CAA 

section 112(d)(6); 

• Establishing new emission limits 

for methanol from bonded RS lines 

under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3); 

• Establishing work practice 

standards for phenol from bonded RS 

lines under CAA section 112(h); 

• Amending the incinerator operating 

limits to include cooling emissions from 

both RS and FA limits under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3); 

• Establishing new subcategories of 

FA lines under CAA section 112(d)(1); 

• Establishing new emission limits 

for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

from most of the newly proposed FA 

line subcategories under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3); and 

• Setting work practice standards for 

phenol from one newly proposed FA 

line subcategory under CAA section 

112(h). 

We are requesting comments on only 

the specific proposed revisions to the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP that are presented in this 

notice. We are not reopening or 

accepting comment on any other aspect 

of the 2015 final rule or prior proposals. 

Taking final action on the proposed 

revisions to the standards for RS lines 

would complete the required CAA 

section 112(d)(6) review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP. 

III. What are the proposed rule 

requirements for RS lines and what is 

our rationale? 

A. What are the proposed rule 

requirements for formaldehyde 

emissions from bonded RS lines? 

In the July 29, 2015, final rule, we did 

not finalize the proposed revisions to 

the formaldehyde, methanol, and 

phenol emissions limits from bonded 

RS lines based on comments indicating 

that emission data we relied on for the 

proposed limits were not representative 

of either contemporaneous operations or 

emissions from bonded RS lines. We 

explained that the proposals were based 

on emissions and process data available 

to the EPA at the time the various 

proposals were issued, and since that 

time, approximately 95 percent of RS 

lines had undergone process 

modifications that involved phasing out 

the use of a phenol-formaldehyde (PF) 

binder and switching to HAP-free 

binders. We further explained that we 

had determined that the product lines 

continuing to operate using PF binders 

are not similar to the tested product 

lines in size, end use, production rate, 

or loss on ignition (LOI) percent. In 

sum, we posited that available data did 

not represent current industry 

conditions, most notably, the significant 

reduction in the use of PF binders in 

wool fiberglass manufacturing. We 

further explained that we had issued an 

ICR, pursuant to our authority under 

CAA section 114, to wool fiberglass 

facilities that operate bonded RS lines in 

order to obtain updated emissions, 

process, and control device data for 

existing RS manufacturing lines. 80 FR 

45293. The first part of the ICR 

requested general information regarding 

RS line process equipment and control 

devices. ICR Part 1. Based on the 

information obtained under ICR Part 1, 

the EPA issued the second part of the 

ICR that required facilities to conduct 

emissions testing for formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol from bonded RS 

line processes. ICR Part 2. Specifically, 

ICR Part 2 required subject facilities to 

collect stack emissions data from RS 

lines during several testing events that 

represented operations during multiple 

seasonal ambient conditions. In 

response to ICR Part 2, the EPA received 

emissions test reports from the Johns 

Manville, Knauf Insulation, and Owens 

Corning facilities. Table 2 of this 

preamble summarizes the sampling 

program conducted under ICR Part 2. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RS LINE TEST PROGRAM

Facility Bonded RS line Test dates Sampling locations 

Johns Manville—Defiance, OH Line 89 .................................... 6/28/2016, 

8/24/2016 

Collection Module A (Venturi scrubber 1 outlet). 

Cooling table (Venturi scrubber 2 outlet). 

Curing oven (regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) outlet). 

Knauf Insulation—Shelbyville, 

IN.

Lines 611, 612, 613, and 614 6/15/2016, 

8/2/2016 

Combined exhaust from Lines 611–614 forming process and 

Lines 613 and 614 cooling process (wet electrostatic precipitator outlet). 

Curing oven (RTO outlet) 

Owens Corning—Waxahachie, 

TX.

Line V1 .................................... 5/17–18/2016 Forming process (spray chamber outlet). 

Cooling (high-efficiency air filter outlet). 

Curing oven (incinerator outlet). 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
40974 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1The EPA established the RBLC to provide a 

central database of air pollution technology 

information (including technologies required in 

source-specific permits) to promote the sharing of 

information on control technologies among 

regulatory agencies. The RBLC contains over 5,000 

air pollution control permit determinations made 

by states, local, and tribal agencies. Control 

technologies, classified as Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), or Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate (LAER) apply to stationary sources 

depending on whether the sources are existing or 

new, and on the size, age, and location of the 

facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) 

are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by 

state or local permitting agencies. 

In reviewing and evaluating responses 

to the CAA section 114 ICR, we have 

now determined that there are currently 

three facilities operating six bonded RS 

lines, as compared to 54 RS 

manufacturing lines at the time of our 

November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72799). 

As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, 

we have also determined that all RS 

lines are equipped with air pollution 

control devices and, most importantly, 

that emissions from all RS lines are 

significantly lower than the existing 

MACT standards. Additionally, we were 

able to confirm the phase out or 

elimination of PF binders which 

facilities have achieved by switching to 

HAP-free binders in wool fiberglass 

manufacturing processes. This is 

consistent with our November 2011 

proposal where we explained that 

‘‘[d]ue to industry’s efforts to replace 

phenol-formaldehyde binders more than 

95 percent of formaldehyde, phenol and 

methanol emissions had been reduced 

(or will be by 2012).’’ 76 FR 72803. 

As previously explained, CAA section 

112(d)(6) requires us to ‘‘review, and 

revise as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies), emission 

standards promulgated under this 

section.’’ We have interpreted CAA 

section 112(d)(6) as providing us the 

authority ‘‘to review the section 112(d) 

standards considering developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies.’’ 70 FR 2008, April 15, 

2008. The agency previously 

promulgated a limit for formaldehyde 

emissions from RS lines under CAA 

112(d) and, thus, has decided that it is 

more appropriate to set limits for 

formaldehyde emissions from RS lines 

under CAA section 112(d)(6) instead of 

under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), as 

previously proposed. 

As also explained in our November 

2011 proposal, our technology review, 

under CAA section 112(d)(6), focuses on 

the identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the 1999 NESHAP was 

promulgated. Where we identify 

developments to inform our decision of 

whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the 

emissions standards, we analyze the 

technical feasibility of applying these 

developments and the estimated costs, 

energy implications, non-air 

environmental impacts, as well as 

considering the emission reductions. 

We also consider the appropriateness of 

applying controls to new sources versus 

retrofitting existing sources. Based on 

our analyses of the available data and 

information, we identified 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies. 

For RS bonded lines, we considered 

any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not 

considered during development of the 

original MACT standards. 

• Any improvements in the 

performance of any add-on control 

technology or other equipment (that 

were identified and considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction. 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure to reduce emissions that was 

not identified or considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards. 

• Any process changes or pollution 

prevention alternatives that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards. 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original MACT 

standards). 

In addition to reviewing the responses 

to the ICR, we reviewed facility 

operating permits and searched the 

EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (RBLC) in our 

investigation of developments in 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies for RS lines at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities.1

As shown in Table 2 of this preamble 

above, various processes on RS lines are 

equipped with air pollution control 

devices as compared to at the time of 

the promulgation of the 1999 MACT. As 

also previously explained, current 

formaldehyde emissions are well below 

the 1999 levels for two reasons: 

(1) Almost all bonded lines have 

replaced the older PF resins with nonPF resins. These reduced the source 

category formaldehyde emissions by 

approximately 95 percent: 

(2) Improvements in control 

technology being used have reduced 

emissions on the remaining lines that 

still use PF resins. 

In light of the most notably significant 

reduction of formaldehyde emissions, 

we are, thus, proposing to conclude that 

there are developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

warrant revisions to the MACT 

standards for RS lines under CAA 

section 112(d)(6). 

B. What are the proposed rule 

requirements for methanol emissions 

from bonded RS lines? 

We are proposing to establish 

emission standards for methanol 

emissions from combined fiber/ 

collection, curing, and cooling processes 

on new and existing bonded RS lines at 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

based on our evaluation of the data 

submitted in response to the ICR 

discussed above. These proposed 

standards differ from the methanol 

limits proposed in April 2013 and 

November 2014 under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3). As previously 

explained, we did not finalize those 

proposed standards based on comments 

we received on our various proposals, 

indicating that our proposals were 

premised on questionable data given 

industry changes since collection of the 

data. In addition, as previously 

explained, we issued and collected 

additional data that is representative of 

current industry operations under an 

ICR subsequent to promulgation of our 

July 29, 2015, final rule. The revised 

limits proposed in this action are based 

on data received in response to the 

recent ICR discussed above. 

C. What are the proposed rule 

requirements for phenol emissions from 

bonded RS lines? 

We are proposing work practice 

standards for phenol emissions from 

combined fiber/collection, curing, and 

cooling processes on new and existing 

bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities under CAA 

section 112(h). In order to promulgate a 

work practice standard in lieu of an 

emission standard, the EPA must 

demonstrate that measurement of 

emissions is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

In the case of bonded RS lines, our 

review of more recent CAA section 114 

test data indicated that over 60 percent 

of the test results were values showing 

that phenol emissions in the exhaust gas 

stream were below the detection limit of 

EPA Method 318. This proposal 

represents a change from the standards 

for phenol emissions from bonded RS 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40975 

lines that were proposed in April 2013 

and November 2014. 

We regard situations where, as here, 

the majority of measurements are below 

detection limits as measurements that 

are not ‘‘technologically practicable’’ 

within the meaning of CAA section 

112(h). We reasoned that ‘‘application of 

measurement methodologies’’ under 

CAA section 112(h) must also mean that 

a measurement has some reasonable 

relation to what the source is emitting 

(i.e., that the measurement yields a 

meaningful value). We further explained 

that unreliable measurements raise 

issues of practicability, feasibility, and 

enforceability. Additionally, we posited 

that the application of measurement 

methodology would also not be 

‘‘practicable due to . . . economic 

limitation’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 112(h) because it would result in 

cost expended to produce analytically 

suspect measurements. 78 FR 22387. 

This proposal to establish a work 

practice standard for phenol differs from 

previous proposals where emission 

limits were proposed for phenol because 

the EPA has concluded that the data 

that supported setting emission limits in 

previous proposals is no longer valid. 

We are seeking comments on only 

these issues or aspects of requirements 

that are being presented in this notice. 

We are not reopening any other aspects 

of the July 29, 2015, final rule and thus, 

are not soliciting comments on them. 

IV. What are the proposed rule 

amendments resulting from our 

technology review and our proposed 

decisions? 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions for formaldehyde emissions 

from RS lines based on our technology 

review? 

We are proposing to readopt the 

current 1.2 pound per ton (lb/ton) glass 

pulled emissions limits for 

formaldehyde from combined fiber/ 

collection, curing, and cooling processes 

on existing, new, and reconstructed 

bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) as part of our 

technology review. Based on the 

technology review conducted for the 

bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities, we have 

determined that emissions are well 

controlled on bonded RS line processes. 

As previously explained, our evaluation 

of the ICR also led us to conclude that 

actual formaldehyde emissions from RS 

lines at all wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities are significantly 

lower than are allowed under the 1999 

NESHAP. We believe that reductions in 

formaldehyde emissions since 

promulgation of the 1999 MACT rule 

are mainly directly related to 

improvements in two areas: (1) 

Improvements in control technology 

(e.g., improved bag materials, 

replacement of older baghouses) and (2) 

the use of electrostatic precipitators. We 

also note that total formaldehyde 

emissions have been significantly 

reduced (by approximately 95 percent) 

since promulgation of the 1999 

NESHAP due primarily to the use of 

non-PF binders. 

Based on these data and new 

information, we evaluated what 

formaldehyde emission limit might be 

appropriate. The EPA’s approach for 

developing the proposed formaldehyde 

emission limits for existing and new 

bonded RS lines sources under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) are explained in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Technology 

Review for Formaldehyde Emitted from 

Rotary Spin Lines,’’ which is available 

in the docket for this proposed action. 

Data and information presented in this 

memorandum could support amended 

limits of 0.23 lb/ton glass pulled for 

existing sources and 0.24 lb/ton glass 

pulled for new sources. Further, 

according to the emissions data 

collected from the ICR, all wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

operating bonded RS lines would be 

able to meet these emission limits, given 

that the ICR suggests that the 

formaldehyde emissions from RS lines 

are much lower than the current MACT 

standard. Therefore, these limits would 

not require additional HAP emission 

controls or limits for other equipment or 

process. In addition, if adopted, 

regulated sources would not be 

expected to incur any additional costs. 

However, we are not proposing to 

lower the formaldehyde limits, and are 

instead proposing to readopt the current 

limits. This is because, as previously 

explained, the source category has 

already achieved approximately 95- 

percent reduction in formaldehyde 

emissions due to the replacement of the 

PF binders with non-PF binders, and 

which, as explained below, results in 

major sources becoming area sources. 

We also believe that the industry trend 

will likely result in the replacement of 

PF binders completely and, thus, view 

the lowering of standards as likely 

penalizing sources that have been 

slower in embracing the industry trend. 

As also previously explained, our 

review of the ICR indicated that all 

bonded RS lines are equipped with air 

pollution control devices as compared 

to the time of promulgation of the 1999 

MACT standards, and that these various 

control technologies have resulted in 

significantly lower emissions than the 

existing MACT standards. We believe 

that sources will not uninstall these 

control technologies at this stage and, 

thus, that the lower emissions remain 

somewhat assured even without our 

lowering of the existing MACT 

standards. 

As part of the technology review, we 

also considered mandating the use of 

non-PF binders for lines currently using 

them, and/or mandating the use of nonPF binders for all bonded lines. We are 

not proposing this option, however, 

because, as explained in our April 15, 

2013, proposal, facilities cease to be 

subject to the major source standards 

once they phase out the use of PF 

binders. ‘‘A facility that does not use 

phenol-formaldehyde binders does not 

manufacture a bonded product, and 

therefore does not have a rotary spin 

manufacturing line or a flame 

attenuation manufacturing line as 

defined in the NESHAP. If the facility 

does not have a rotary spin 

manufacturing line or a flame 

attenuation manufacturing line it does 

not meet the definition of wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility and 

therefore, would no longer be subject to 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP,’’ 78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013. 

As also previously explained, industry 

continues to actively engage in the 

phase-out of PF binders and have 

achieved approximately 95-percent 

reduction in formaldehyde emissions as 

a result. We also believe this industry 

trend will continue given industry 

indications that non-PF binders are 

actually less expensive than PF binders. 

Therefore, cost considerations will 

move the industry in this direction 

without the need for regulation. 

We also note that for some products, 

customer specifications preclude the 

use of any currently available non-PF 

binders. If PF binders were banned, 

these products would likely no longer 

be produced. 

We are specifically requesting 

comment on the proposed readoption of 

the current formaldehyde limit rather 

than setting new limits based on 

information and data submitted under 

the ICR. 

B. What are the proposed requirements 

for methanol emissions from RS lines? 

Based on the new information and 

data that the agency received pursuant 

to the ICR, we are proposing to establish 

limits for methanol emissions from 

combined fiber/collection, curing, and 

cooling processes on existing, new, and 

reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
40976 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

To determine the MACT floor for 

methanol, we applied the 99-percent 

upper predictive limit (UPL) method to 

the best-performing five sources in the 

test data collected under Part 2 of the 

ICR. The UPL analysis is explained in 

the memorandum titled ‘‘Development 

of Proposed Emission Limits for 

Methanol Emissions from Rotary Spin 

Lines in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Source Category,’’ which 

is available in the docket for this 

proposed action. We considered 

beyond-the-floor options for methanol 

for all combined collection and curing 

operation designs as required by CAA 

section 112(d)(2). However, we are not 

proposing any limits based on the 

beyond-the-floor analyses for methanol 

for these sources because of the 

potential adverse impacts of additional 

controls, including the cost of control 

devices, non-air environmental impacts, 

and energy implications associated with 

use of these additional controls. The 

beyond-the-floor analysis is presented 

in the memorandum titled ‘‘Control 

Costs for Rotary Spin Lines,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

action. Table 3 of this preamble presents 

the proposed methanol emission limits 

for the combined fiber collection/ 

formation, curing, and cooling processes 

on existing, new, and reconstructed RS 

lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED METHANOL

EMISSION LIMITS (lb/ton OF GLASS

PULLED) FOR RS LINES

Existing sources 

New and 

reconstructed 

sources 

1.06 ....................................... 0.65 

The emission limits for methanol in 

this proposed action, if finalized, would 

codify the level of emissions currently 

being achieved on RS line processes by 

add-on control devices (e.g., gas 

scrubbers, thermal oxidizers). 

This proposal differs from and 

modifies our prior proposals. Details 

regarding previously proposed methanol 

emission limits can be found in the 

April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November 

2014 (79 FR 68029) proposals. 

C. What are the proposed requirements 

for phenol emissions from RS lines? 

We are proposing to establish work 

practice standards for phenol emissions 

from combined fiber/collection, curing, 

and cooling processes on existing, new, 

and reconstructed bonded RS lines at 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

under CAA section 112(h). The EPA’s 

review of the test data collected under 

Part 2 of the ICR identified that 

approximately 60 percent of the 

concentration values were reported as 

below the detection limit of EPA 

Method 318 (Extractive Fourier 

Transform Infrared (FTIR) Method for 

Measurement of Emissions from the 

Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass 

Industries). Considering statistical 

validity, we concluded that, in cases 

where at least 55 percent of the test data 

are below the detection limit of the 

respective test method, it is not feasible 

to prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard for phenol from RS lines. 

Under CAA section 112(h), we are 

instead proposing a work practice that 

represents MACT. 

To identify an appropriate work 

practice standard for phenol, the EPA 

reviewed the current NESHAP 

requirements regarding testing, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping of resins 

and binders used in manufacturing wool 

fiberglass products. The EPA also 

discussed possible phenol work practice 

standards with industry representatives. 

Because of difficulties in measuring 

phenol, we cannot develop numerical 

emission limits; however, we believe 

that a requirement to establish the freephenol content of the binder resin used 

during the compliance demonstration 

for formaldehyde and methanol and the 

associated recordkeeping requirements 

for resin shipments and binder 

formulations represents MACT for 

phenol. Consequently, we are proposing 

to require owners or operators to 

establish the free-phenol content of the 

binder resin used during the 

formaldehyde and methanol compliance 

demonstration based on vendor 

specifications, and to require 

recordkeeping of the free-phenol 

contents of each resin shipment 

received and each resin used in binder 

formulation. We are also proposing to 

revise the emission standards specified 

in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(9) to require that 

owners or operators must not use a resin 

in binder formulations that contains a 

higher free-phenol content than they 

established during the initial or 5-year 

compliance demonstrations for 

formaldehyde and methanol. 

This proposal differs from and 

modifies our prior proposals. Details 

regarding previously proposed phenol 

emission limits can be found in the 

April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November 

2014 (79 FR 68029) proposals. 

D. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

We are proposing that wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that operate 

bonded RS lines that commenced 

construction or reconstruction on or 

before August 29, 2017 must 

demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart no later 

than 2 years after the effective date of 

this rule. Affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after August 29, 2017 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart no later 

than the effective date of the rule or 

upon start-up, whichever is later. CAA 

section 112(i)(3) requires that existing 

sources must comply as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than 3 years 

after promulgation of standards under 

CAA section 112(d). (‘‘Section 

112(i)(3)’s three-year maximum 

compliance period applies generally to 

any emissions standard . . . 

promulgated under [section 112].’’ Ass’n 

of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 

667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). This proposal 

reflects our belief that sources would 

need this amount of time to comply 

with the various proposed requirements 

and is a result of our review of the more 

recent information and data that these 

proposed requirements are based on. 

For instance, the proposed work 

practice standards for phenol, which 

call for vendor specifications, would 

likely require vendor bids and 

selections as well as time to establish 

the free-phenol content of binder resin 

and the likely institution of new 

practices to address the record keeping 

requirements when finalized. 

V. What other changes are we 

proposing to the NESHAP in this 

action? 

In this action, we are also proposing 

amendments to the incinerator 

operating limits specified in 40 CFR 

63.1382(c)(6) to clearly indicate that the 

subsection applies to cooling emissions. 

Incinerators would be required to 

control the final formaldehyde, 

methanol, and, where applicable, 

phenol emissions from forming, curing, 

and cooling processes on both FA and 

bonded RS lines. 

We are proposing to allow owners or 

operators that conducted emissions tests 

in 2016 in response to the EPA’s ICR to 

submit those performance test results to 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

new methanol emission limits for RS 

lines, rather than conducting additional 

tests. 

VI. What are the proposed amendments 

applicable to FA lines? 

We are proposing the following three 

subcategories for FA lines based on 

recent information indicating that there 

are technical or design differences that 

distinguish sources that utilize FA lines: 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40977 

2On July 27, 2017, the EPA published a direct 

final rule to extend the compliance date for the FA 

lines in order to provide time for the EPA to review new emissions data and revise the standards where 

appropriate. 

(1) Aerospace and Air Filtration 

(Aerospace); (2) Heating, Ventilation, 

and Air Conditioning (HVAC); and (3) 

Original Equipment Manufacturer 

(OEM). (In establishing standards under 

CAA section 112(d), the EPA may 

‘‘distinguish among classes, types, and 

sizes of sources within a category or 

sub-category.’’ CAA section 112(d)(1). 

NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 

2007)). We are also proposing revisions 

to the July 2015 final rule formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol limits to reflect 

these new subcategories.2

In March 2017, the EPA received 

notification from Johns Manville that 

several of the emission test reports the 

company submitted to the EPA to 

support development of the 2015 

NESHAP emission limits for FA lines 

contained errors in the analytical results 

for formaldehyde, methanol, and 

phenol. According to Johns Manville 

and their testing contractor, the errors 

caused the test run-level values for 

pollutant mass to be biased low, 

particularly for methanol and phenol 

(i.e., actual pollutant emissions were 

higher than reported). Johns Manville 

provided the corrected reports for the 

facilities affected by the miscalculations 

to the EPA after promulgation of the 

July 29, 2015, final rule. Upon further 

review of the data, including the 

rationale for setting the 2015 NESHAP 

emission limits, the EPA has 

determined that there are several 

technical questions regarding the 2015 

NESHAP emission limits that cannot be 

resolved using the corrected reports 

provided by Johns Manville. 

Consequently, in May 2017 Johns 

Manville provided the EPA with more 

recent test data for FA lines that were 

collected in 2016 and 2017. 

The EPA’s review of the new test data 

confirmed that all FA line emissions 

points at each facility were sampled and 

pollutant concentrations were measured 

using test methods allowed by 40 CFR 

63, subpart NNN (EPA Methods 316 and 

318 for formaldehyde, EPA Methods 308 

and 318 for methanol, and EPA Method 

318 for phenol). However, the EPA 

identified that the phenol emissions 

from certain FA lines were 1 to 2 orders 

of magnitude higher than the phenol 

emissions from other FA lines. The EPA 

discussed this observation with Johns 

Manville representatives who 

acknowledged that they use different 

binder formulations on certain FA lines 

to manufacture specific types of wool 

fiberglass products, and that the 

different binder formulations result in 

higher or lower phenol emissions, 

depending on the composition of the 

binder. As previously explained, in 

cases where we identify differences in 

size, class, or type that significantly 

affect emissions levels, we may create 

subcategories when setting emission 

limits. This is the case here, where the 

phenol content of the resins is different 

based on the product type. The industry 

identified three types of FA line 

products: (1) Aerospace; (2) HVAC; and 

(3) OEM. The type of product 

determines the phenol content of the 

resin and, ultimately, the level of 

phenol emissions. 

Based on the EPA’s review of the new 

emissions data, the EPA is proposing 

standards for the three subcategories of 

FA line products as shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR FA LINES

[lb/ton] 

Subcategory Pollutant Existing 

sources 

New and 

reconstructed 

sources 

Aerospace ..................................................................... Formaldehyde ...............................................................

Methanol .......................................................................

26.25 

8.69 

16.83 

3.98 

HVAC ............................................................................ Formaldehyde ...............................................................

Methanol .......................................................................

Phenol ...........................................................................

2.81 

7.29 

0.38 

2.38 

1.44 

0.38 

OEM .............................................................................. Formaldehyde ...............................................................

Methanol .......................................................................

Phenol ...........................................................................

4.66 

5.32 

27.19 

2.60 

0.98 

20.69 

For the Aerospace subcategory, we are 

proposing a work practice standard that 

represents MACT for phenol because 

approximately 80 percent of the 

available phenol data are below the 

detection limit of the respective test 

method. Consistent with our proposed 

work practice for phenol emissions from 

RS lines, we are proposing to require 

owners or operators to establish the freephenol content of the binder resin used 

during the formaldehyde and methanol 

compliance demonstration for the 

Aerospace subcategory, based on vendor 

specifications, and to require 

recordkeeping of the free-phenol 

contents of each resin shipment 

received and each resin used in binder 

formulation. We are also proposing to 

revise the emission standards specified 

in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(9) to require that 

owners or operators must not use a resin 

in binder formulations that contain a 

higher free-phenol content than they 

established during the initial or 5-year 

compliance demonstrations for 

formaldehyde and methanol. 

We are specifically requesting 

comments and supporting process and 

emissions data related to the proposed 

revisions to the promulgated emissions 

limits for FA lines. 

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts 

A. How many sources are affected? 

Based on the responses to the 2016 

ICR, only three wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities continue to use 

RS lines to manufacture a bonded 

product. These three facilities operate 

six bonded RS lines that would be 

affected by the revised emission limits. 

The EPA is not currently aware of any 

planned or potential new or 

reconstructed bonded RS lines. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

The proposed standards codify and 

maintain the emissions reductions 

achieved by the industry due primarily 

to the phase-out of PF binders since 

promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP. 

Based on the test data received in 

response to the CAA section 114 ICR, all 

facilities with bonded RS lines currently 

meet the proposed emission limits for 

formaldehyde and methanol. Therefore, 

the proposed emission limits for 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
40978 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

formaldehyde and methanol will not 

result in further HAP emissions 

reductions. Also, we do not anticipate 

secondary environmental impacts from 

the proposed amendments to the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 

because owners or operators will not 

need to install additional control 

devices to meet the proposed standards. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Because the existing facilities will not 

need to install add-on control devices or 

implement process modifications to 

comply with the proposed emissions 

standards, and because the EPA is 

allowing facilities to use the test reports 

submitted in response to the ICR Part 2 

to demonstrate initial compliance with 

the proposed emission limits, the three 

facilities subject to the proposed 

emission limits will not incur increased 

costs for installing or upgrading 

emissions control systems. However, the 

three facilities subject to this proposal 

will each incur costs ($4,377/year/ 

facility, 2016 dollars) related to the 

submission of initial notifications and 

notifications of compliance status for 

the formaldehyde and methanol 

emission limits, and additional 

monitoring and recordkeeping activities 

related to the phenol work practice 

standard. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

Economic impact analyses evaluate 

changes in market prices and output 

levels. If changes in market prices and 

output levels in the directly affected 

markets are significant, impacts on other 

markets are also examined. Both the 

magnitude of costs needed to comply 

with the rule and the distribution of 

these costs among affected facilities can 

have a role in determining how the 

market will change in response to a rule. 

The proposed standards for RS lines 

at wool fiberglass facilities do not 

impose control costs or additional 

testing costs on affected facilities. 

However, affected facilities will have 

reporting requirements (i.e., an initial 

notification and a notification of 

compliance status) associated with the 

proposed formaldehyde and methanol 

emission limits and monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements associated 

with the phenol work practice standard. 

We estimate that the total annual 

burden for each facility associated with 

the proposed monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements to be 

approximately $4,377/year/facility, and 

the total annual cost of this proposal is 

approximately $13,131/year (2016 

dollars). The economic impacts 

associated with the costs of this 

proposal are quite low; each affected 

firm is estimated to experience an 

impact of less than 0.01 percent of their 

revenues. 

E. What are the benefits? 

Based on the data collected under ICR 

Part 2, the actual formaldehyde 

emissions from all bonded RS lines are 

lower than the level allowed under the 

1999 NESHAP. Although the proposed 

standards do not achieve further 

emissions reductions, the proposed 

emission limits for formaldehyde and 

methanol ensure that the emissions 

reductions that have been achieved 

since promulgation of the original 40 

CFR 63, subpart NNN in 1999 will 

persist into the future and that 

emissions will not increase. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

significant regulatory action and was, 

therefore, not submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

1160.10. This action does not change 

the information collection requirements. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this proposed action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. None of the three entities 

affected by this proposal are small 

entities, using the Small Business 

Administration definition of small 

business for the affected NAICS code 

(327993), which is 1,500 employees for 

the ultimate parent company. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This proposed action does not contain 

any unfunded mandate of $100 million 

or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

proposed action imposes no enforceable 

duty on any state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. This proposed 

action would revise the existing 

emissions limit for formaldehyde and 

establish new emission limits for 

methanol and a work practice standard 

for phenol emissions. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This proposed action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 because it is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This proposed action involves 

technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 

NESHAP through the Enhanced 

National Standards Systems Network 

(NSSN) Database managed by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). We also contacted voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. 

As discussed in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), 

under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, we 

conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40979 

318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 

60, Appendix A. These searches did not 

identify any VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA 

reference methods. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

It does not establish an environmental 

health or safety standard. This action 

would make corrections and updates to 

an existing protocol for assessing the 

precision and accuracy of alternative 

test methods to ensure they are 

comparable to the methods otherwise 

required; thus, it does not modify or 

affect the impacts to human health or 

the environment of any standards for 

which it may be used. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wool 

fiberglass manufacturing. 

Dated: August 18, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 

of the Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart NNN—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

■ 2. Section 63.1381 is amended by 

adding the definitions, in alphabetical 

order, for ‘‘Aerospace and Air Filtration 

Products,’’ ‘‘Heating, Ventilation, and 

Air Conditioning (HVAC) Products,’’ 

and ‘‘Original Equipment Manufacturer 

(OEM) Products’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.1381 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Aerospace and air filtration products 

means bonded wool fiberglass 

insulation manufactured for the thermal 

and acoustical insulation of aircraft and/ 

or the air filtration markets. 

* * * * * 

Heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) products means 

bonded wool fiberglass insulation 

manufactured for use in HVAC systems 

for the distribution of air or for thermal 

and acoustical insulation of HVAC 

distribution lines. 

* * * * * 

Original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) products means bonded wool 

fiberglass insulation manufactured for 

OEM entities that fabricate the 

insulation into parts used as thermal or 

acoustical insulation in products 

including, but not limited to, 

appliances, refrigeration units, and 

office interior equipment. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.1382 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8)(i), and 

(c)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1382 Emission standards. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) The owner or operator must 

operate each incinerator used to comply 

with the emissions limits for rotary spin 

or flame attenuation lines specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart such that any 3- 

hour block average temperature in the 

firebox does not fall below the average 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.1384. 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(i) The owner or operator must initiate 

corrective action within 1 hour when 

the monitored process parameter 

level(s) is outside the limit(s) 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.1384 for the process 

modification(s) used to comply with the 

emissions limits for rotary spin or flame 

attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, and complete corrective 

actions in a timely manner according to 

the procedures in the operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring plan. 

* * * * * 

(9) The owner or operator must use a 

resin in the formulation of binder such 

that the free-formaldehyde and freephenol contents of the resin used do not 

exceed the respective ranges contained 

in the specification for the resin used 

during the performance test as specified 

in § 63.1384. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.1383 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h), (i)(1), and 

(j) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1383 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator who uses 

an incinerator to comply with the 

emissions limits for rotary spin or flame 

attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart shall install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a monitoring 

device that continuously measures and 

records the operating temperature in the 

firebox of each incinerator. 

* * * * * 

(h) The owner or operator who uses 

a wet scrubbing control device to 

control formaldehyde and methanol 

emissions must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate monitoring 

devices that continuously monitor and 

record the gas pressure drop across each 

scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow 

rate to each scrubber according to the 

procedures in the operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring plan. The 

pressure drop monitor must be certified 

by its manufacturer to be accurate 

within ±250 pascals (±1 inch water 

gauge) over its operating range, and the 

flow rate monitor must be certified by 

its manufacturer to be accurate within 

±5 percent over its operating range. The 

owner or operator must also 

continuously monitor and record the 

feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the 

scrubbing liquid. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator who uses 

process modifications to control 

formaldehyde and methanol emissions 

must establish a correlation between 

formaldehyde and methanol emissions 

and the process parameter(s) to be 

monitored. 

* * * * * 

(j) The owner or operator must 

monitor and record the freeformaldehyde and free-phenol content 

of each resin shipment received and of 

each resin used in the formulation of 

binder. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1384 is amended by 

revising introductory paragraph (a), 

(a)(3), (a)(9), and introductory paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1384 Performance test requirements. 

(a) The owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall 

conduct a performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission limits in § 63.1382. 

Compliance is demonstrated when the 

emission rate of the pollutant is equal to 

or less than each of the applicable 

emission limits in § 63.1382. The owner 

or operator shall conduct the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
40980 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

performance test according to the 

procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

A and in this section. If the owner or 

operator conducted an emissions test in 

2016 according to the procedures 

specified in § 63.1384(a)(9) and 

§ 63.1385 in response to the EPA’s 

Information Collection Request, the 

owner or operator can use the results of 

the emissions test to demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits for 

rotary spin lines specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(3) During each performance test, the 

owner or operator must monitor and 

record the glass pull rate for each glassmelting furnace and, if different, the 

glass pull rate for each rotary spin 

manufacturing line and flame 

attenuation manufacturing line. Record 

the glass pull rate every 15 minutes 

during any performance test required by 

this subpart and determine the 

arithmetic average of the recorded 

measurements for each test run and 

calculate the average of the three test 

runs. If a rotary spin or flame 

attenuation line shares one or more 

emissions points with another rotary 

spin or flame attenuation line(s), owners 

or operators can conduct the 

performance test while each of the 

process lines with the shared emissions 

point(s) is operating as specified in 

paragraph (a)(8) of this section, rather 

than testing each of the shared lines 

separately. In these cases, owners or 

operators must use the combined glass 

pull rate for the process lines with the 

shared emissions point(s) to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions limits specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(9) The owner or operator of each 

rotary spin manufacturing line and 

flame attenuation manufacturing line 

regulated by this subpart must conduct 

performance tests using the resin with 

the highest free-formaldehyde content. 

During the performance test of each 

rotary spin manufacturing line and 

flame attenuation manufacturing line 

regulated by this subpart, the owner or 

operator shall monitor and record the 

free-formaldehyde and free-phenol 

contents of the resin, the binder 

formulation used, and the product LOI 

and density. 

* * * * * 

(c) To determine compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, for formaldehyde and 

methanol for RS manufacturing lines; 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for 

FA manufacturing lines; and chromium 

compounds for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces, use the following equation: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.1385 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(8) as follows: 

§ 63.1385 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(8) Method contained in appendix B 

of this subpart for the determination of 

the free-formaldehyde content of resin. 

The owner or operator shall use vendor 

specifications to determine the freephenol content of resin. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1386 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) The free-formaldehyde and freephenol contents of each binder batch 

and the LOI and density for each 

product manufactured on a rotary spin 

manufacturing line or flame attenuation 

manufacturing line subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, and the freeformaldehyde and free-phenol contents 

of each resin shipment received and of 

each resin used in the binder 

formulation; 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Table 2 to subpart NNN of part 63 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising entries 7 and 8; 

■ b. Redesignating entries 9 through 13 

as entries 11 through 15; 

■ c. Adding new entries 9 and 10; 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated entries 

13 through 15; 

■ e. Adding new entries 16 through 19; 

and 

■ g. Adding new footnote 5. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES

If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply by: 2

* * * * * * * 

7. Rotary spin manufacturing line On or before March 31, 1997 ....... 1.2 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled 5.

June 14, 2002. 

8. Rotary spin manufacturing line After March 31, 1997 .................... 0.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled 5.

June 14, 1999. 

9. Rotary spin manufacturing line On or before November 25, 2011 0.32 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled.

1.06 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date 3 years after publication of 

the final rule. 

10. Rotary spin manufacturing line After November 25, 2011 ............. 0.24 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled.

0.65 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date of publication of the final 

rule.4

11. Flame attenuation line manufacturing a heavy-density product.After March 31, 1997 but on or 

before November 25, 2011.

7.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled 5.

June 14, 1999. 

12. Flame attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product.On or before March 31, 1997 ....... 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled 5.

June 14, 2002. 

13. Flame attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product.After March 31, 1997 but before 

November 25, 2011.

6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled 5.

June 14, 1999. 

14. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an Aerospace product.On or before November 25, 2011 26.25 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled .

8.69 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date 1 year after publication of 

the final rule. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules 40981 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES—Continued 

If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply by: 2

15. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an Aerospace product.After November 25, 2011 ............. 16.83 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled .

3.98 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date of publication of the final 

rule.4

16. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an HVAC product.On or before November 25, 2011 2.81 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled .

7.29 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled .

0.38 lb phenol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date 1 year after publication of 

the final rule. 

17. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an HVAC product.After November 25, 2011 ............. 2.38 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled.

1.44 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

0.38 lb phenol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date of publication of the final 

rule.4

18. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an OEM product.On or before November 25, 2011 4.66 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled.

5.32 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

27.19 lb phenol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date 1 year after publication of 

the final rule. 

19. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an OEM product.After November 25, 2011 ............. 2.60 lb formaldehyde per ton of 

glass pulled.

0.98 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

20.69 lb phenol per ton of glass 

pulled.

Date of publication of the final 

rule.4

5This limit does not apply after date 3 years after publication of the final rule. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–18211 Filed 8–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS