Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042-0136
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gas-Fired Melting Furnaces Located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources, etc.; Public Hearing
Posted Date: 2013-04-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22369-22406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07257]

[[Page 22369]]

Vol. 78

Monday,

No. 72

April 15, 2013

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral 
Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gas-Fired Melting Furnaces 
Located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 22370]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9682-8]
RIN 2060-AQ90

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gas-Fired Melting 
Furnaces Located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes chromium and particulate matter (for 
metals) standards for wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 
at area sources and adds these sources to the category list in the 
Urban Air Toxics Strategy. It also proposes amendments to the existing 
major source rules for Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass, supplementing 
the rule proposed on November 25, 2011. The proposed area source 
standards for the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces used to make wool 
fiberglass would increase the level of environmental protection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2013. If anyone 
contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing by April 22, 2013, we will 
hold a public hearing on May 6, 2013. Under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured 
of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget receives a 
copy of your comments on or before May 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the proposed wool fiberglass area 
source rule and the major source RTR amendments, identified by Docket 
ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042, or the mineral wool RTR amendments, 
identified by EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1041 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1041 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a 
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 
20503.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 
or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments on the Mineral Wool RTR to Docket ID 
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and direct your comments on the Wool 
Fiberglass RTR and proposed area source rule to Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-1042. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will 
be included in the public docket without change to http://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 
www.regulations.gov or email. The 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 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 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 
avoid the use of special characters, 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 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The EPA has established dockets for these rulemakings under 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 (Mineral Wool Production) and 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing). All documents in 
the docket are listed in the www.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, will be publicly 
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave. 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about these proposed 
actions, contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone (919) 541-5167; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email 
address: fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For information about the 
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Scott 
Throwe, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. EPA 
Headquarters Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail 
Code: 2227A, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7013; 
fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: throwe.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon monoxide
COS Carbonyl sulfide
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitators
FA flame attenuation
GP General Provisions
HAP hazardous air pollutants

[[Page 22371]]

HCl Hydrogen chloride
HF Hydrogen fluoride
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NaOH Sodium hydroxide
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM Particulate matter
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RS rotary spin
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers
RTR residual risk and technology review
SBA Small Business Administration
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    D. When will a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
    A. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
    B. What are the HAP-emitting processes in wool fiberglass 
manufacturing at area and major sources?
    C. What is the regulatory history for wool fiberglass 
manufacturing?
    D. What is the authority for the development of NESHAP for area 
sources?
    E. What sources did EPA look to in assessing GACT?
    F. Upon what set of data are the limits for glass-melting 
furnaces located at area sources based?
III. What are the proposed requirements for glass-melting furnaces 
located at area sources?
    A. What are the proposed applicability requirements?
    B. What are the proposed emission limits for gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area 
sources?
    C. What are the proposed measurement methods, monitoring, 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for glass-melting furnaces 
located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?
    D. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to 
startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions?
IV. How did we develop the proposed standards for glass-melting 
furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?
    A. How did the EPA select the emissions sources and pollutants 
to regulate?
    B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule for 
glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area 
sources?
    C. How did the EPA determine the proposed emission standards for 
glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area 
sources?
    D. How did the EPA determine the compliance and monitoring 
requirements for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources 
proposed rule?
    E. How did the EPA determine compliance dates for the proposed 
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources rule?
    F. How did the EPA determine recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources 
proposed rule?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 
Rule
    A. What are the air impacts for the proposed Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing area source rule?
    B. What are the cost impacts for the proposed Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing area source rule?
    C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy 
impacts for the proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area source 
rule?
    D. What are the economic impacts of the proposed Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing area source rule?
VI. What are the proposed changes to Mineral Wool Production 
(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) major 
source rules?
    A. Subpart DDD--Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule
    B. Subpart NNN--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule
    C. Revisions to Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions
VII. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to Mineral Wool Production 
(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) Major 
Source Rules
    A. Subpart DDD--Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule
    B. Subpart NNN--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule
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
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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 Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    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?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 below.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NAICS code
         Source category                   NESHAP                \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Wool Production.........  Mineral Wool Production.        327993
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing...  Wool Fiberglass                 327993
                                   Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
proposed action for the source categories listed. To determine whether 
your facility would be affected, you should examine the applicability 
criteria in the appropriate NESHAP.
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the worldwide web 
through the EPA's TTN. Following signature, a copy of the proposed 
action will be posted on

[[Page 22372]]

the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed and promulgated 
rules at the following address:  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.html. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control. Additional information is available on the 
RTR Web page at  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This 
information includes source category descriptions and detailed 
emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the proposed rule 
development.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through http://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 comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted 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 indicating 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 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information 
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
1042 (Wool Fiberglass).

D. When will a public hearing occur?

    If a public hearing is requested by April 22, 2013, it will be held 
on May 6, 2013, at the EPA's Research Triangle Park Campus room C113, 
109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The hearing 
will convene at 1 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and end at 5 p.m. 
(Eastern Standard Time). Please contact Pamela Garrett at (919) (541-
7966) or at garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request a hearing, to determine 
if a hearing will be held and to register to speak at the hearing, if 
one is held. If a hearing is requested, the last day to pre-register in 
advance to speak at the hearing will be Wednesday, May 1, 2013. 
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. If you require the service of a 
translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please 
let us know at the time of registration. If no one contacts the EPA 
requesting a public hearing to be held concerning this proposed rule by 
April 22, 2013 a public hearing will not take place.
    If a hearing is not requested by April 22, 2013 one will not be 
held. If a hearing is held it will provide interested parties the 
opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed 
action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who 
arrive and register. Because this hearing, if held, will be at a U.S. 
governmental facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing 
should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security 
staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. 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. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral 
presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. 
Written statements and supporting information submitted during the 
comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments 
and supporting information presented at the public hearing. If a 
hearing is held on May 6, 2013, written comments on the proposed rule 
must be postmarked by June 5, 2013. Commenters should notify Ms. 
Garrett if they will need specific equipment, or if there are other 
special needs related to providing comments at the hearing. The EPA 
will provide equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make 
computerized slide presentations if we receive special requests in 
advance. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each 
commenter. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy 
of their oral testimony electronically (via email or CD) or in hard 
copy form. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written statements 
will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make 
every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day 
of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either 
ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Information regarding the hearing 
(including information as to whether or not one will be held) will be 
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/woolfib/woolfipg.html. Again, 
all requests for a public hearing to be held must be received by April 
22, 2013.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    In 1992, the EPA listed the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major 
source category and defined that category to include 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 Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category includes, but is not limited 
to, the following processes: Glass-melting furnace, marble-forming, 
refining, fiber-forming, binder application, curing and cooling. Though 
the listing was for major sources, all of the manufacturing process 
steps described here are applicable to both major and area sources. The 
only difference is that area sources use a formulation for some or all 
of their binders that does not contain HAP, and, thus, emissions do not 
exceed the major source threshold. These changes to the bonded lines 
are independent of and occur downstream of the furnace. Also, furnaces 
located at major and area sources have the same emissions profiles.
    Wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities at major and area sources 
typically operate one or more manufacturing lines. Refined raw 
materials for the glass batch are weighed, mixed, and conveyed to the 
glass-melting furnace, which may be gas-fired, electric, oxygen-
enriched or gas and electric combined.
    The glass-melting furnace is lined with refractory bricks, 
providing thermal insulation and corrosion protection. According to 
industry statements in product specification materials and in ICR 
responses regarding refractory composition and furnace design, these 
bricks may contain significant amounts (over 94 percent by weight) of 
chromium-containing

[[Page 22373]]

compounds.\1\ Specifically, the 114 responses, which were completed by 
all wool fiberglass companies, listed the chromium content of the 
refractory linings of the glass melting furnaces. The chromium content 
of the refractories in use at wool fiberglass furnaces ranged from 30-
94 percent chromium compounds, with a chromium content of up to 68 
percent (chromium by weight). The primary component of wool fiberglass 
is silica (quartz) sand, but it also includes varying quantities of 
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, previously 
melted glass and many other materials. Previously melted glass in the 
form of marbles or crushed recycled glass (cullet) is a primary 
component in most batches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See product specifications from Saint-Gobain Corporation 
(chromium refractory product line and SEFPRO) at saint-gobain.com 
and in the docket to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the first step of wool fiberglass manufacturing, raw materials 
are introduced continuously or in batches on top of a bed of molten 
glass into glass-melting furnaces where they mix and dissolve at 
temperatures ranging from 2,700 [deg]F to 3,100 [deg]F (1,500 [deg]C to 
1,700 [deg]C), and are transformed by a series of chemical and thermal 
reactions to molten glass.
    In the second step of wool fiberglass manufacturing, fibers are 
formed using either of two methods: The rotary spin (RS) method or the 
flame attenuation (FA) method. In the RS process, centrifugal force 
causes molten glass to flow through small holes in the wall of a 
rapidly rotating cylinder. In the FA process, molten glass flows by 
gravity from a small glass-melting furnace, or pot, to form threads 
that are then attenuated (stretched to the point of breaking) with air 
and/or flame.
    After the fibers are formed, they are sprayed with a binder to hold 
the fibers together. Both major and area sources use binders. The 
bonded fibers are then collected as a mat on a moving conveyor. Binder 
compositions vary with product type. After application of the binder 
and formation of the mat, the conveyor carries the newly formed mat 
through an oven for curing of the thermosetting resin contained in the 
binder and then through a cooling section. Some products do not require 
curing and/or cooling and FA manufacturing lines do not have cooling 
processes. Low and high-temperature thermal oxidizers are used to 
control emissions of phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol from curing 
operations on bonded lines at major sources.

B. What are the HAP-emitting processes in wool fiberglass manufacturing 
at area and major sources?

    Glass-melting furnaces emit metal HAP (chromium, cadmium, 
beryllium, manganese, nickel, lead and arsenic), which are present in 
the particulate emissions. Particulate emissions are caused by 
entrainment of dust from batch dumping and the combustion process and 
from melting of the raw mineral materials. In addition, emissions of 
chromium also result from entrainment of materials eroded from the 
refractory lining of the glass-melting furnace and the glass-melting 
furnace exhaust stack. Several HAP metals, including lead and arsenic, 
are released from the batch materials and from the use of contaminated 
cullet i.e., crushed recycled glass (64 FR 31695 (June 14, 1999)). As 
shown in Table 2 below, the total metal emissions from all sources is 
about 1,800 pounds per year (1,300 from major sources and 500 from area 
sources), of which 620 pounds are chromium compounds. Area sources 
contribute approximately 80 pounds of chromium compounds; major sources 
contribute the balance of 540 pounds of chromium compounds.

                 Table 2--Total Metals and Chromium Emissions by Furnace Type and Source, lb/yr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of furnaces      Total metals emissions   Chromium emissions  (lb/
                                   --------------------------          (lb/yr)                     yr)
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                       Major         Area        Major         Area        Major         Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Furnaces.................           21           46  ...........  ...........           10           10
Gas-Fired.........................            8            8  ...........  ...........          530           70
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................           29           54          760          420          540           80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Glass-melting furnaces may be either gas-fired, electric, oxygen-
enriched or a combination of gas and electric. About 80 percent of the 
glass-melting furnaces used in the wool fiberglass industry are 
electric (e.g., steel shell or cold-top) and about 20 percent are gas-
fired (e.g., air gas, recuperative air gas, or oxyfuel). Glass pull 
rates for glass-melting furnaces typically range from 20 to 240 tons 
per day, but can go up to 435 tons per day. Emissions from glass-
melting furnaces are typically controlled by baghouses or ESP. Electric 
glass-melting furnaces typically have low PM and metal HAP emissions 
without add-on controls as a result of their design. Operators of these 
units maintain a thick crust of raw materials on top of the molten 
glass, which impedes the release of heat and keeps the air temperature 
of the glass-melting furnace below 300 [deg]F (120 [deg]C).
    Glass-melting furnaces also emit acid gases (hydrofluoric and 
hydrochloric acid) that result from the presence of chlorides and 
fluorides in the raw materials. Total emissions of acid gases from both 
major and area sources are 24 tons per year (about 19 tons from major 
sources and about 5 tons from area sources).
    The forming and binding step occurs at both area and major sources. 
Emissions from the forming and binding step include formaldehyde, 
phenol, and methanol. These emissions occur post-furnace, when the 
volatile components of the binder come in contact with the hot fibers. 
A portion of the binder components pass through the conveyor and into 
the control device (thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer or scrubber). 
However, at area sources some or all of the binders used are formulated 
to contain no HAP. Though air emissions of non-HAP containing binders 
still occur, the overall emissions of HAP from binder application are 
either eliminated or significantly reduced (if some HAP containing 
binders are still used) to a level where the facility is not a major 
source.
    As explained in our 1997 major source MACT rulemaking (62 FR 15229-
530), exposure to the HAPs emitted by wool fiberglass manufacturing can 
cause reversible or irreversible health effects including carcinogenic, 
respiratory, nervous system, developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal 
health effects. However, chromium emissions from furnaces are

[[Page 22374]]

not affected by the reformulation of the binder. Chromium emissions are 
of particular concern. The effects of inhaling chromium depend on 
whether the oxidation state of the metal is trivalent or hexavalent. 
Trivalent chromium is substantially less toxic than hexavalent 
chromium. Both types of chromium irritate the respiratory tract. 
Hexavalent chromium inhalation is associated with lung cancer, and EPA 
has classified it as a Class A known human carcinogen, per EPA's 
classification system for the characterization of the overall weight of 
evidence for carcinogenicity.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ From ``Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment'', 51 FR 
33991-34003, September 24, 1986. For more information on chromium's 
inhalation carcinogenicity: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm--
Section II: Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure. For 
more information on the support for the summary of the 
carcinogenicity of chromium in EPA's Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS): http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0144tr.pdf. For 
the most recent guideline document for Carcinogen Risk Assessment: 
http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3-25-05.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, we have a situation where the agency had listed and regulated 
metal HAP emissions from wool fiberglass furnaces as part of Subpart 
NNN, the major source MACT. As explained above, many of the area 
sources at issue were, in fact, subject to Subpart NNN, and were 
required to meet the PM limits (as a surrogate for metal HAP) in that 
rule. These sources are no longer subject to Subpart NNN because they 
no longer meet the definition of a ``wool fiberglass facility,'' since 
they do not use a phenol-formaldehyde binder in their manufacturing 
lines. Recent data provided by industry confirm that the gas-fired 
glass-melting furnaces located at area sources emit urban metal HAP, 
including significant amounts of chromium.

C. What is the regulatory history for wool fiberglass manufacturing?

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires the agency to list and 
promulgate NESHAP in order to control, reduce or otherwise limit the 
emissions of HAP from categories of major and area sources. Pursuant to 
the various specific listing requirements in section 112(c), the agency 
listed 174 categories of major and area sources that would be subject 
to NESHAP (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992). The Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing major source category was on that list.
    In the 1992 listing notice, we provided source category 
descriptions and noted that the list, consistent with the statute, may 
be revised from time to time as additional information became 
available. The agency also noted the requirement to list area sources 
pursuant to the Urban Air Toxics Strategy under section 112(c) and (k). 
(See 57 FR 31582).
    We proposed the NESHAP for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major 
source category on March 31, 1997 (61 FR15228). At proposal, we 
explained that we were aware of only three facilities that were area 
sources. We further explained that two glass-melting furnaces located 
at these area sources had MACT floor level controls. 40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart NNN (62 FR 31695). The EPA promulgated the final NESHAP for the 
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major source category on June 14, 1999 
(62 FR 31695), and those requirements are codified at 40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart NNN.
    The requirements of the major source NESHAP apply to HAP emitted 
from the following new and existing sources at a wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facility:
    1. Glass-melting furnaces located at a wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facility;
    2. Rotary spin wool fiberglass manufacturing lines producing a 
bonded wool fiberglass building insulation product; and
    3. Flame attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing lines producing 
a bonded pipe product and bonded heavy density product. (40 CFR 
63.1380).
    With regard to the two manufacturing lines, rotary spin and flame 
attenuation, the major source NESHAP provides that a bonded product is 
wool fiberglass to which a phenol-formaldehyde binder has been applied. 
(40 CFR 63.1381).
    As explained previously, HAP emitted from glass-melting furnaces 
include acid gases and metals, such as chromium, cadmium, beryllium, 
manganese, nickel, lead and arsenic. Formaldehyde, phenol and methanol 
are the HAP emitted from forming, cooling and curing processes, which 
are the processes associated with the rotary spin and flame attenuation 
lines.
    The major source NESHAP set standards for PM (as a surrogate for 
non-Hg metal HAP) to address emissions from glass-melting furnaces and 
formaldehyde (as a surrogate for phenol and methanol) to address 
emissions from the forming, cooling, and curing processes. (40 CFR 
63.1382). Thus, the NESHAP regulates emissions from both glass-melting 
furnaces and the manufacturing lines. The record supporting the major 
source NESHAP (Subpart NNN) provides that regulation of PM, chromium 
and metal HAP emissions from the glass-melting furnaces would occur 
irrespective of whether the lines were producing a bonded product. The 
EPA did not intend to exempt any major sources or incentivize such 
sources to avoid MACT coverage by producing non-bonded products (i.e., 
wool fiberglass to which a phenol-formaldehyde binder was not applied). 
Rather the EPA contemplated that the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
NESHAP would regulate emissions from both glass-melting furnaces and 
rotary spin and flame attenuation lines, the latter of which are part 
of the forming, curing and cooling process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, in the response to comments document supporting 
the final major source NESHAP, EPA clarified the applicability of 
the rule. Specifically, EPA rejected a request to limit the rule to 
the manufacturing lines, noting that the commenter's suggested 
revision ``would alter the applicability of the rule'' such that 
glass-melting furnaces would not be covered. Further, in response to 
the commenter's suggested change of the definition of ``wool 
fiberglass,'' EPA responded that ``while the suggested change may 
help to clarify the EPA's intent to cover only manufacturing lines 
producing bonded wool fiberglass products, it would create confusion 
over the rule's coverage of glass-melting furnaces.'' EPA stated: 
``Because the EPA's intent is to regulate all glass-melting furnaces 
located at wool fiberglass plants that are major sources of HAP, and 
not just those melters that feed molten glass to manufacturing lines 
producing bonded wool fiberglass products, the EPA has decided to 
not modify the definition of `wool fiberglass' by adding `bonded to 
the definition. The EPA believes that other definitions and the 
applicability section of the rule are clear on the EPA's intent to 
regulate manufacturing lines that produce bonded products and not 
non-bonded products.'' (Emphasis added). See Comments 2.2 and 2.3 of 
the response to comment documents for the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing Source Category, which can be found in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The major source NESHAP, however, also defined the term ``wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility'' as ``any facility manufacturing 
wool fiberglass on a rotary spin manufacturing line or on a flame 
attenuation manufacturing line.'' (40 CFR 63.1381). As noted above, in 
order to have a rotary spin manufacturing line or a flame attenuation 
manufacturing line you must produce a bonded product, which is a 
product to which a phenol-formaldehyde binder has been applied. Thus, 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. Thus, the wool fiberglass manufacturing facility 
definition appears to be in tension with the

[[Page 22375]]

applicability provision, (in 40 CFR 63.1380, which is described above), 
to the extent the provision states that the requirements of the NESHAP 
apply to HAP emitted from the glass-melting furnaces located at a wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility (40 CFR 63.1380).
    As shown in a 2002 applicability determination for Johns Mansville 
(JM), the narrow definition of a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility 
resulted in a determination that a rotary spin line that stopped making 
bonded products was no longer subject to Subpart NNN.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The determination provided, in pertinent part, ``Based on 
the definitions provided in section 63.1381, EPA agrees that if the 
[rotary spin line located at the] JM Penbryn Plant is no longer 
using a phenol-formaldehyde binder, the facility no longer meets the 
definition of a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility in Subpart 
NNN.'' Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, Director for Compliance 
Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, USEPA 
to Karl Mangels, Air Compliance Branch, USEPA, Region II, (August 1, 
2002)). EPA also agreed ``that as a result of the switch to a non 
phenol-formaldehyde binder, the glass-melting furnace is not subject 
to Subpart NNN since it is no longer located at a wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facility.'' (Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, 
Director for Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, 
Office of Compliance, USEPA to Karl Mangels, Air Compliance Branch, 
USEPA, Region II, (August 1, 2002)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the phase out of phenol-formaldehyde binders does not 
reduce or otherwise change emissions from the glass-melting furnace. 
This is because the first step of wool fiberglass manufacturing at both 
major and area sources (i.e., where raw materials are introduced) 
occurs in the glass-melting furnace and as earlier explained total 
chromium compounds, arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, lead, manganese and 
nickel are some of the HAP emitted from glass-melting furnaces. These 
emissions are different from HAP emissions from the forming and bonding 
section of rotary spin and flame attenuation manufacturing lines; which 
as explained above are formaldehyde, phenol and methanol or none of 
these where a facility has phased out the use of phenol-formaldehyde 
binders. Thus, sources that no longer meet the definition of a wool 
fiberglass facility because they no longer use phenol-formaldehyde 
binders on the rotary spin and flame attenuation lines are no longer 
subject to Subpart NNN. However, they still emit metal HAP from the 
glass-melting furnaces. These HAP include total chromium compounds, 
lead, arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, manganese and nickel, which are HAP 
that the EPA has identified under sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3) as part 
of the 30 urban HAP (the ``urban HAP'').
    On November 25, 2011, the EPA proposed revisions to the Mineral 
Wool and the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subparts DDD and NNN, respectively, to address the results of the 
technology review and residual risk review that the EPA is required to 
conduct under sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) (76 FR 72770). The 
limits in those proposed amendments apply to major sources, that is, 
sources emitting at least 10 tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons 
per year of any combination of HAP.
    In the November 25, 2011 proposal, the agency noted that since 
promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP, sources had modified certain processes 
by using non-HAP binders instead of phenol-formaldehyde binders (76 FR 
72770). As noted above, a facility that no longer uses phenol-
formaldehyde binders does not meet the definition of ``wool fiberglass 
facility'' under Subpart NNN. Many sources that were subject to the 
major source NESHAP (Subpart NNN) have eliminated the use of phenol-
formaldehyde binders and these sources now emit less than 10 tons per 
year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAP. We 
understand that 20 of the existing 30 wool fiberglass facilities have 
become area sources through the phase-out of phenol-formaldehyde in the 
binders. However, the glass-melting furnaces at these sources continue 
to emit chromium and other HAP metal compounds. As explained above, 
emissions from glass-melting furnaces are completely separate and 
independent from emissions from the bonding portion of the process. 
Further, while replacement of phenol-formaldehyde binders with non-HAP 
binders is an environmentally responsible, or ''green'' choice within 
the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, recent data from industry 
show that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces specifically continue to 
emit chromium and other HAP metal compounds, and for furnaces located 
at area sources these emissions are not currently regulated pursuant to 
CAA section 112.
    While subpart NNN applies to wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities that are major sources, today's proposed rule would apply to 
gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities that are area sources (subpart NN). As 
explained below in section IV, we are listing gas-fired glass-melting 
furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are 
area sources pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) of the CAA.

D. What is the authority for the development of NESHAP for area 
sources?

1. Authority Under Section 112(k) Area Source Program
    Sections 112(c)(3) and (k) of the CAA require the EPA to identify 
and list the area source categories that represent 90 percent of the 
emissions of the 30 urban air toxics associated with area sources and 
subject them to standards under the CAA (section 112(d)). Cross 
referencing section 112(c)(3), section 112(k)(3) requires the EPA to 
identify a list of at least 30 air toxics that pose the greatest 
potential health threat in urban areas (the ``urban'' HAP). Taken 
together, these requirements are known as the Urban Air Toxics Strategy 
(Strategy). These are the HAP that present the greatest threat to 
public health in the largest number of urban areas (section 
112(k)(3)(B)(i) of the Act). The EPA is also required to ``assure that 
sources accounting for 90 percent or more of the 30 identified 
hazardous air pollutants are subject to standards.'' (Section 
112(k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 112(c)(3)). Under the Strategy, the EPA 
has developed standards to control toxic air pollutants from area 
sources. For the Strategy, the EPA identified a list of 33 air toxics 
in the area source program under which a total of 68 area source 
categories were identified which represented 90 percent of the 
emissions of the 33 listed air toxics. Under the Strategy, EPA 
regulated these 68 source categories of urban HAP in 56 subparts of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For EPA's notice on the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, see 64 FR 
38706, 38715-716 (July 19, 1999.)
    \6\ EPA issued final area source standards in the following FR 
notices:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) requires the EPA to 
``assure that [area] sources accounting for 90 percent or more of the 
30 identified hazardous air pollutants [the 30 urban HAP] are subject 
to standards.'' (Emphasis added). Nothing in the CAA prevents the 
agency from going beyond the statutory minimum of 90 percent. Indeed, 
to date, we have established emission standards for sources accounting 
for almost 100 percent of area source emissions of certain urban HAP. 
For example, we have established emission standards for various source 
categories emitting dioxin, which is an urban HAP, and these categories 
represent 100 percent of area source dioxin emissions.
    To date, the agency has regulated 90 percent of sources accounting 
for area source chromium, manganese, lead and nickel emissions, all of 
which are urban

[[Page 22376]]

HAP emitted by gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, and 93 percent of 
sources accounting for cadmium emissions and 99 percent for arsenic and 
beryllium emissions.\7\ Consistent with the authority provided in 
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the agency is listing and proposing 
emission standards for these urban metal HAP emissions from gas-fired 
glass-melting furnaces located at area sources. With this regulation, 
pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the agency will have 
subjected additional sources to regulation for urban metal HAP, which 
is wholly consistent with the goals of the Strategy. Under the 
Strategy, we went above the 90 percent when it was feasible to do 
so.\8\ For example, EPA subjected 99 percent of sources of arsenic and 
beryllium compounds to regulation under the Strategy. We have no 
requirement to limit our regulation to the minimum of 90 percent of 
sources; we however must subject at least 90 percent of the sources of 
the urban HAP to regulation under the strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See. ``Technical Memorandum. Emission Standards for Meeting 
the 90 Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(3) and Section 
112(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act'' From Nathan E. Topham, 
Environmental Engineer, USEPA February 18, 2011.
    \8\ For the listing notices of the Strategy, see 64 FR 38705, 
July 19, 1999; 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 
2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; and 74 FR 30366, June 25, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we are adding gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at area 
sources to the source category list, we are also proposing standards 
for the category.\9\ See section III.B below regarding the proposed 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We have made several revisions to the section 112(c)(3) list 
since its issuance: 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, 
November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; 74 FR 30366, June 
25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Alternative Standards for Area Sources Under Section 112(d)(5)
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices by 
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on generally available control technologies or 
management practices (GACT) is found in the Senate report on the 
legislation (Senate report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which 
describes GACT as:

* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT. Determining what constitutes GACT 
involves considering the control technologies and management practices 
that are generally available to the area sources in the source 
category.
    In setting GACT, we always look to the standards applicable to 
major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control 
technologies and management practices are transferable and generally 
available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, we may also 
consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in 
similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices 
could be considered generally available for the area source category at 
issue. In this case, the control technologies and managment practices 
for major sources are transferable because major source glass-melting 
furnaces are no different than area source glass-melting furnaces. 
Finally, as we have already noted, in determining GACT for a particular 
area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of 
available control technologies and management practices on that 
category.
    GACT differs from MACT in that cost can be considered in the first 
instance when establishing a GACT standard. By contrast, when 
establishing MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(3), EPA must 
determine the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources and the emission limitation 
achieved by the best controlled similar source for new sources, without 
regard to cost.
    As explained in greater detail in section III.B below, we 
determined that GACT standards for area sources should be the same as 
the major source standards proposed for PM and chromium on November 25, 
2011, pursuant to section 112(d)(6), based on the similarity between 
production processes, emission points, emissions, and control 
technologies that are characteristic of both major and area source wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities and considerations of cost.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The EPA also considers the costs and economic impacts of 
available control technologies and management practices when 
determining whether to revise a standard pursuant to section 
112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What sources did EPA look to in assessing GACT?

    As noted above, determining what constitutes GACT involves 
considering the control technologies and management practices that are 
generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also 
consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same 
industrial sector, which is particularly relevant here as the control 
technologies and management practices are transferable and generally 
available to area sources. Given the above, it is appropriate to 
consider both major and area sources in assessing GACT.
    In order to identify all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 
we relied on the original listing of facilities from the 1999 NESHAP, 
based on industry comments. Major sources are subject to Title V, and 
are identified in a database used for Title V permitting purposes. The 
agency used this Title V database to identify major sources in the Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. There are currently 30 
facilities in this source category, of which 10 are major sources and 
20 are area sources. Currently, area sources operate 54 glass-melting 
furnaces while major sources operate 29 glass-melting furnaces. We also 
note that the industry has provided information that some of the major 
sources have already filed permit modifications with the appropriate 
permitting agencies to become area sources, but the permitting agency 
has not yet acted on the request.

F. Upon what set of data are the limits for glass-melting furnaces 
located at area sources based?

    At the time of the November 25, 2011, RTR proposal, the EPA had 
information that all glass-melting furnaces emit metal HAP in the form 
of particulate emissions. In addition, subsequent to the November 25, 
2011, proposal, the EPA requested information through a section 114 
information request regarding PM and chromium compounds that are either 
used in or emitted by glass-melting furnaces at facilities that engage 
in wool fiberglass manufacturing. The EPA has evaluated the responses 
and confirmed that over 90 percent (15 out of 16) of gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces emit chromium compounds at measurable amounts. These 
data have been compiled with previously submitted industry source tests 
into a database for this source category and serve as the technical 
basis for this area source rulemaking.
    The EPA reviewed the entire set of data for the wool fiberglass 
manufacturing industry, which includes

[[Page 22377]]

both major and area sources. We conducted QA/QC analyses to ensure data 
accuracy, identified the area sources and arrayed those data according 
to the magnitude of the emissions and control device.
    We considered whether to include all glass-melting furnaces in the 
set of data or only those glass-melting furnaces located at area 
sources. We concluded it was most reasonable to base the emission limit 
on the entire set of data, and not on a subset of area sources for the 
reasons described below.
    First, due to the definition of ``wool fiberglass facility'' in 
Subpart NNN, the set of area sources is constantly growing. When 
facilities change their status from a major source to an area source, 
they typically do so as a result of changes in their binder 
formulation, a process occurring downstream of the glass-melting 
furnace. In 2002, two out of 33 facilities were area sources; within 10 
years that number had increased 10-fold, and by December 2012, 20 out 
of 30 had become area sources. The bonded lines are independent of 
glass-melting furnaces; the binder formulation change does not affect 
glass-melting furnace operations, limits or production.
    Second, the glass-melting furnaces in use when the facility is a 
major source are the same glass-melting furnaces operating in the same 
manner as when it becomes an area source. Because there is no 
difference between the glass-melting furnace operations at area sources 
and those at major sources, we found no reason to differentiate the 
glass-melting furnaces located at major sources from the furnaces 
located at area sources.
    Third, there is no definitive cut-off date to determine when 
facilities that are major sources become area sources. As discussed 
earlier, the industry is phasing out its use of phenol-formaldehyde 
based binders, but each company/facility has its own schedule for the 
transition to non phenol-formaldehyde binders. As explained earlier, 
because the HAP emissions resulting from the use of phenol-formaldehyde 
binders place the facility in major source status (that is, the HAP 
emissions are at least 10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of a 
combination of HAP), when a facility discontinues the phenol-
formaldehyde binder and begins use of a non-HAP binder, it becomes an 
area source, emitting less than major source levels.
    The limits we are proposing in today's action are GACT limits, and 
are based on the ``generally available control technologies or 
management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of HAP.'' We 
note that this is the same data set on which technology review was 
based for the wool fiberglass RTR proposed rule.\11\ We therefore 
propose that the larger industry dataset, including glass-melting 
furnaces at both major and area wool fiberglass manufacturing sources, 
is the appropriate set on which to base the proposed GACT limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This is similar to our decision in the Portland Cement 
NESHAP (74 FR 21155, May 6, 2009), where we based the PM, mercury, 
and total hydrocarbon limits on all the kilns used by industry for 
which we had data because there were no differences between kilns 
located at major sources and those located at area sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the proposed requirements for glass-melting furnaces 
located at area sources?

    As previously discussed, we have determined the EPA's intent in 
developing the 1999 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP was to 
regulate metal HAP emissions from all glass-melting furnaces, but now 
many glass-melting furnaces are no longer regulated by the NESHAP. 
Based on industry-provided data, these glass-melting furnaces emit 
metal HAP. However, we have determined that gas-fired glass-melting 
furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities can emit higher 
levels of metal HAP, and also higher than expected levels of chromium 
than electric glass-melting furnaces. This is due to the use of high 
chromium refractories above the glass melt line, and use of these 
refractories is essential to obtain the desired glass-melting furnace 
life. Also, the industry has indicated that the current trend is to 
replace air gas glass-melting furnaces with oxyfuel glass-melting 
furnaces.12 13 Oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces have the 
highest potential for elevated chromium emissions as discussed further 
in section IV.A of this preamble. Accordingly, we believe it is 
appropriate to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities that are located at area sources to the list 
of area sources regulated in the Urban Air Toxics Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial 
Technologies Program, Final Technical Report. ``Compressive Creep 
and Thermophysical Performance of Refractory Materials''. Oak Ridge 
National Laboratories. June 2006.
    \13\ Oxygen-Enhanced Combustion, Baukal, Charles E., Jr. 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections present the applicability requirements, 
emission limits, measurement methods, monitoring, notification, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements we are proposing for these 
area sources. The rationale for these requirements follows this 
section.

A. What are the proposed applicability requirements?

    The proposed rule would apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 
located at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are at area 
sources. Gas-fired furnaces include, but are not limited to, oxyfuel, 
air gas and recuperative air gas glass-melting furnaces.
    We also considered having the limits apply only to glass-melting 
furnaces constructed using chromium in the refractory of the glass-
melting furnace. However, we also learned from the section 114 
responses that most wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces are 
constructed of refractory materials containing similar chromium 
content. The potential for chromium emissions is related more to the 
amount of high chromium refractories above the glass melt line and the 
air temperature above the glass melt. The furnace energy source (gas 
versus electric) is a more reliable indicator of the potential for 
chromium emissions from the refractory than refractory chromium 
content. Therefore, we opted to use the energy source as a basis of 
determining the types of area source furnaces to regulate rather than 
the chromium content of the refractory. We therefore propose that all 
wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at area 
sources should be subject to the same emission limit being proposed 
today, regardless of the chromium content of the refractory bricks used 
to construct them.

B. What are the proposed emission limits for gas-fired glass-melting 
furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?

    We are proposing a GACT standard of 0.00006 pounds (lb) of chromium 
compounds per ton of glass pulled (0.06 lb per thousand tons glass). 
This is the same limit we previously proposed for glass-melting 
furnaces used by wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities at major 
sources, pursuant to section 112(d)(6) (76 FR 72770).
    We found that emissions of glass-melting furnaces, including those 
located at area sources, are generally below this limit. Thus, most 
glass-melting furnaces, specifically gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 
at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities, show this limit can be met 
using generally available control technologies and practices.
    We are also proposing a PM emission limit of 0.33 lb per ton of 
glass pulled. This is the same limit we are proposing for major sources 
in this action based on technology review showing most glass-melting 
furnaces using baghouses or

[[Page 22378]]

electrostatic precipitators for PM control. Similarly, PM emissions 
from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities are all below this limit. The above proposed 
limits apply at all times. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008) (Vacating the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1) 
that exempt sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise 
applicable CAA section 112(d) emissions standards during periods of 
startup, shutdown and malfunctions).
    Finally, because the analyses for technology review and for GACT 
both consider costs and analyze available technologies, and because 
major and area sources share the same control approaches, it is a 
reasonable outcome that the emission limits proposed for major sources 
under the technology review and the proposed GACT limits are the same.

C. What are the proposed measurement methods, monitoring, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for glass-melting furnaces located at wool 
fiberglass manufacturing area sources?

    To be consistent with the major source rule, we are proposing the 
same test methods and procedures for PM and chromium compounds 
contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.
    In order to minimize the burden associated with stack testing, we 
are proposing a reduction in performance testing frequency. We are 
proposing that sources measuring chromium compounds in two successive 
performance tests that are less than 75 percent of the limit of the 
rule be allowed to reduce their testing frequency (for chromium) to no 
less than every 3 years. We are also proposing that sources measuring 
PM emissions less than 75 percent of the limit in two successive 
performance tests be allowed to reduce their PM testing frequency to no 
less than every 3 years. With each of these performance test frequency 
reductions, the reduced frequency benefit is lost if a subsequent re-
test shows PM or chromium emissions above 75 percent of the emission 
standard. In that case, two successive performance tests demonstrating 
compliance below 75 percent of the emission limit would be required for 
a source to, once again, qualify for less frequent emissions testing.
    To be consistent with the wool fiberglass manufacturing major 
source rule, we are proposing that glass-melting furnaces located at 
area sources must meet all applicable monitoring requirements and all 
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

D. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to startup, 
shutdown and malfunction provisions?

    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards 
in this rule that apply at all times. In proposing these standards, the 
EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods. Based on the 
information before the Agency, which includes information provided by 
industry, we expect facilities can meet the proposed emission standards 
during startup and shutdown. Nothing in the record suggests that 
emissions will be greater during startup and shutdown periods and the 
record confirms that the control devices are operated during these 
periods.
    We are also including an alternative compliance provision that 
would allow sources to demonstrate compliance with the standards during 
startup and shutdown by keeping records showing that your furnace 
emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated 
at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that 
showed compliance with the standard. During startup and shutdown of a 
gas-fired furnace the operating temperatures and amounts of raw 
materials available to produce air emissions are lower than other 
operating periods. This would tend to result in lower uncontrolled 
emissions levels. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that by 
continuing to operate the air pollution control equipment during these 
periods a source will be in compliance with the emissions limit.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the November 2011 
proposal and as discussed further below, we are proposing in this area 
source rule to include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 
violations of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 
CFR 63.881 of the proposed rule (defining ``affirmative defense'' to 
mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or 
defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has 
the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and 
objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding).
    We also are proposing other regulatory provisions to specify the 
elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the 
source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met 
all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.886. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The 
criteria are designed in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is 
available only where the event that causes a violation of the emission 
limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 
(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor 
maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to successfully 
assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the violation ``[w]as caused by a 
sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control 
and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in 
a normal or usual manner * * *.'' The criteria also are designed to 
ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize 
emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.882(b) when finalized and to 
prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as 
expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred * * *'' and that 
``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess 
emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human health * * 
*.'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator 
may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the 
respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in 
the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in 
accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27).
    The EPA included an affirmative defense in this proposed rule in an 
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air 
regulations, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously 
recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission 
standards may be violated under circumstances beyond the control of the 
source. The EPA must establish emission standards that ``limit the 
quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a 
continuous basis.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(k)(defining ``emission limitation 
and emission standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that 
section 112 emissions standards are continuous. The affirmative defense 
for malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even 
where there is a malfunction, the emission standard is still 
enforceable through injunctive relief. The United States Court of

[[Page 22379]]

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an 
affirmative defense provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the 
Clean Air Act. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 699 
F.3d.427 (5th Cir. Oct. 12 2012) (upholding the EPA's approval of 
affirmative defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). 
While ``continuous'' standards, on the one hand, are required, there is 
also case law indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for 
the EPA to account for the practical realities of technology. For 
example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 
1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under 
CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as provisions allowing for 
upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction ``appear 
necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a whole 
and that the record does not support the `never to be exceeded' 
standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement Association v. 
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law 
such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments call into 
question the relevance of these cases today, they support the EPA's 
view that a system that incorporates some level of flexibility is 
reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to 
civil penalties for violations that are proven to be beyond the control 
of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has 
formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, 
the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when 
regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.'' Marathon 
Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). See also, Mont. 
Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 
(Jan 19, 2012)(rejecting industry argument that reliance on the 
affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. 
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an 
informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give 
the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission standards are 
``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for 
unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of the standard as 
a whole.

IV. How did we develop the proposed standards for glass-melting 
furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?

    At proposal of the technology review and residual risk review of 
the major source NESHAP in 2011, we proposed emission limits for 
chromium compounds because hexavalent chromium is emitted from wool 
fiberglass glass-melting furnaces and stated that we planned to 
regulate wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces located at area sources 
in a future action. (76 FR 72770). The highest emitting glass-melting 
furnace, an oxyfuel glass-melting furnace, was measured emitting at 550 
pounds per year, while other glass-melting furnaces were emitting 
between five and 250 pounds of chromium per year. We considered whether 
it was possible for other facilities to emit chromium compounds at the 
level of the highest emitting facility and proposed that, under the 
same circumstances, other wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 
could emit at similar levels. We reasoned at proposal in 2011 that 
nothing prevents a wool fiberglass company from constructing a glass-
melting furnace identical to the glass-melting furnace with the highest 
chromium emissions.
    As explained in the November 25, 2011, proposal, the industry trade 
association (National Association of Insulation Manufacturers of 
America (NAIMA) had conducted a voluntary survey of companies that 
manufacture wool fiberglass. The survey sought test data on HAP 
emissions, process equipment, control devices and other aspects of the 
wool fiberglass manufacturing operations. With regard to total chromium 
compounds, the survey requested information on the chromium content of 
glass-melting furnaces at different parts of the glass-melting furnace 
and required all glass-melting furnaces to be tested for both total 
chromium and hexavalent chromium emissions. This voluntary survey was 
followed by the EPA's section 114 information request letter requesting 
test data on total chromium compounds emissions from all glass-melting 
furnaces and information on glass-melting furnace design and refractory 
chromium content.

A. How did the EPA select the emissions sources and pollutants to 
regulate?

    As previously discussed, wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 
emit the following urban air toxics: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel (PM is regulated as a surrogate 
for these metals) from the glass-melting furnace; and phenol, 
formaldehyde and methanol from the binding process. The emissions 
profile of glass-melting furnaces at area sources and major sources are 
identical. However, this is not true for emissions of formaldehyde from 
the binding operation. A facility becomes an area source by minimizing 
or eliminating binder formaldehyde emissions. For this reason, we 
determined that it is not necessary to include the binding operation in 
this proposed listing, and have limited the listing to chromium and PM 
as a surrogate for the remaining metal HAP from glass-melting furnaces.
    The glass-melting furnace design (layout and location of chromium 
refractory), energy source, and refractory age are the major factors 
affecting chromium emissions from glass-melting furnaces.
    There are two types of glass-melting furnaces in the wool 
fiberglass industry, gas-fired and electric. Oxyfuel, air gas, and 
recuperative air gas are gas-fired; cold-top electric and electric 
steel shell are electric glass-melting furnaces. All of these furnace 
types emit metal HAP in the form of controlled PM emissions at similar 
levels. However, based on new information gathered since the November 
25, 2011, proposal of the major source RTR, we have determined that 
gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities exhibit a greater potential to emit chromium compounds and 
other metal HAP than electric furnaces, and also to convert trivalent 
chromium to hexavalent chromium.
    Table 3 of this preamble presents a summary of the chromium test 
data for wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces. The data show a 
significant range of chromium emissions. All of the glass-melting 
furnace types have some sources that emit at very low levels, but only 
gas-fired glass-melting furnaces show a potential to have chromium 
emissions levels above the 0.00006 lb/ton glass pulled emissions level 
proposed for glass-melting furnaces.

 Table 3--Range of Chromium Compound Emissions by Glass-Melting Furnace
                                  Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cr compound
                                                         emissions (lb/
              Glass-melting furnace type                 1000 tons glass
                                                             pulled)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Steel Shell..................................     0.0022-00.039
Cold-Top Electric.....................................     0.00078-0.027
Air Gas...............................................        .0025-0.96
Oxy Fuel..............................................          .011-3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Available data indicate that all furnace types use high chromium

[[Page 22380]]

refractory in some areas. However, information provided by the industry 
on furnace design indicates that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces have 
a higher potential to emit chromium compounds due to the placement of 
the high chromium refractory, the physical layout of the furnace, the 
size and placement of the burners in relation to the sides and top of 
the glass-melting furnace, the depth from the burners to the top of the 
raw materials, the temperature at and above the melt, and the oxide 
concentration of the glass-melting furnace gas environment. In 
addition, gas-fired furnaces show the greatest potential to convert 
chromium to its most toxic form, hexavalent chromium, due to the 
significantly higher temperature above the glass melt line of a gas-
fired furnace.
    These data (i.e., data submitted by the wool fiberglass 
manufacturing industry on glass-melting furnace type and construction 
materials in response to both NAIMA's voluntary survey and the agency's 
section 114 letter) indicate that the highest emitting glass-melting 
furnace is a gas-fired furnace, specifically, an oxyfuel glass-melting 
furnace constructed using chromium refractories. However, all glass-
melting furnaces with the high chromium emissions were either oxyfuel 
or air gas glass-melting furnaces. The section 114 information letter 
required measurements of both hexavalent and total chromium as well as 
identification of the location and chromium content of the refractories 
used in glass-melting furnace construction.
    The reason for the higher emission potential for gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces is due to differences in design, construction 
materials, and operation of gas-fired glass-melting furnaces compared 
to electric glass-melting furnaces. A chromium refractory product has 
the greatest resistance to heat and wear of any refractory in use 
today. The temperatures above the melt in gas-fired glass-melting 
furnaces range from 2,500 [deg]F to 4,500 [deg]F, while the 
temperatures in electric glass-melting furnaces are a few hundred 
degrees. Due to their higher operating temperatures, gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces are constructed using chromium refractories at various 
parts of the glass-melting furnace that are above the molten glass, 
including the crown. The chromium in the refractory is the source of 
the chromium emissions from the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.\14\ 
However, other influencing factors determine both the rate and 
magnitude of the chromium emissions when chromium is available in the 
furnace lining. The presence of chromium above the glass melt line, the 
percentage of chromium available in the refractory, the rate of 
degradation of the furnace interior, the chemistry of the wool 
fiberglass `recipe', the temperature of the furnace, the oxidizing 
atmosphere of the furnace, the placement and proximity of burners to 
the furnace wall, and other design and construction factors contribute 
to the corrosion and erosion of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace 
refractory and the formation of hexavalent chromium furnace. In 
addition, the high temperatures result in more of the chromium being 
converted to its hexavalent state compared to electric furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA Notes of meeting with Certainteed, April 14, 2011; 
Industry Meetings with EPA on March 19, 2012; April 30, 2012; and 
December 6, 2012; email from Lauren P. Alterman, Saint-Gobain 
Corporation, regarding chrome emissions and refractory bricks, 
August 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since our November 25, 2011, proposal, we have learned that if a 
source of reasonably priced oxygen is available, the oxyfuel glass-
melting furnace is the design favored for use by glass manufacturers 
due to the glass-melting furnace's low NOX emissions 
(NOX is an ozone precursor), and low energy demands per 
volume output of glass. The low NOX emissions of an oxyfuel 
glass-melting furnace result from the fact that no air (which contains 
nitrogen) is introduced into the high temperature zone above the glass 
melt. Instead, the oxyfuel glass-melting furnace design mixes the 
natural gas fuel with pure oxygen for combustion, thus reducing 
NOX emissions.
    The DOE's office of Industrial Technology, in association with 
industry experts from the glass manufacturing, refractory production 
sectors and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, conducted studies to 
determine ways to optimize energy uses, needs and efficiencies in 
industrial sectors. In these studies, industry experts agreed (Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory, June 2006, p. 9) that oxyfuel glass-melting 
furnaces will ultimately replace air gas glass-melting furnaces by 2020 
due to these economic and environmental factors. For example, industry 
experts participating in the Industrial Technologies Program (ITP), 
under the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
program, described the demands an oxyfuel glass-melting furnace places 
upon the refractory lining: ``The ITP has recognized that a reduction 
in overall domestic energy consumption will occur if the primary 
energy-consuming industries improve their own energy efficiencies. 
Recognizing this need, the glass industry is currently converting 
older, conventional air-fuel-fired furnaces to oxyfuel firing, or in 
the case of new construction, is building new oxyfuel-fired furnaces 
instead. This has caused oxyfuel technology to become one of the 
fastest growing technologies in the glass industry because it promises 
pollution abatement, increased glass-pull effectiveness, capital cost 
savings and increased energy efficiency. For example, a recent study 
has shown that approximately $202M in energy savings per year in 2005 
and a $445M per year savings by 2020 could be expected with the 
conversion of air/fuel to oxy-fuel-fired glass manufacturing furnaces. 
These results, which reflect energy savings of 2.8 and 14.2 TBtu/year, 
respectively, are based on the projection that 61 percent and 100 
percent furnace conversions will occur by the years 2005 and 2020, 
respectively.''
    Other studies (Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, Lee,Y., 
Nassaralla, C.L., 1998) advise us that, under normal industrial 
temperatures, which can exceed 1,300 [deg] F., and oxidizing 
conditions, trivalent chromium, which is present in the refractory, 
oxidizes to hexavalent chromium.\15\ It was found that uncombined and 
available oxides were responsible for a higher yield of hexavalent 
chromium. Consequently, an increasing concentration of oxides in the 
oxyfuel glass-melting furnace environment increases the formation of 
chromium from the trivalent state to hexavalent state. The condition of 
high oxides in the oxyfuel glass-melting furnace environment is one 
characteristic of the highest emitting glass-melting furnace (see 
Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 document number 0067: Region 7 Notes 
on CertainTeed Kansas City. June 10, 2011. 13 pages).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B. ``Minimization 
of Hexavalent Chromium in Magnesite-Chrome Refractory''. Y. Lee and 
C. L. Nassaralla. Vol. 28 B, Oct. 1997--pp. 855-859.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, while the degradation of the glass-melting furnace 
refractory indicates increasing chromium emissions, that process does 
not necessarily follow a normal and predictable pattern. The 
degradation of refractories within the glass-melting furnace is a 
function of numerous factors, including temperature, time, stress and 
the composite effects of aging and creep response. These processes are 
highly nonlinear, so the traditional equations that assume steady-state 
deformation rates are not appropriate (DOE and Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory, June 2006 p. 63).

[[Page 22381]]

    Although all glass-melting furnaces are constructed using chromium 
refractories (NAIMA letter dated January 28, 2013. Industry Meeting 
Notes, August 31, 2011) at and below the line of contact defined by the 
refractory wall and the molten glass within the glass-melting furnace 
(the glass/metal line), oxyfuel and some air gas glass-melting furnaces 
have other glass-melting furnace parts constructed using chromium 
refractories, such as the crown and forehearth. The use of chromium 
refractories above the melt line is necessary to obtain the desired 
furnace life and reduce the necessity for hot repairs of the furnace. 
When the hot, corrosive and reactive gases of a gas-fired glass-melting 
furnace come in contact with the high chromium refractories lining the 
area above the glass melt in high temperature glass-melting furnaces, 
the chromium is available to be oxidized and converted into its 
hexavalent form.
    The cost of rebuilding a wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace 
ranges from 10-12 million dollars; most of this cost is the cost of 
skilled labor (C. Davis, CertainTeed Corp., April 2011). While chromium 
refractories are more expensive than conventional refractories, they 
are only incrementally so (DOE and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June 
2006, p. 1). When conventional (high alumina/silica) refractories are 
used, the useful life of the glass-melting furnace is about 7 years. 
Chromium refractories almost double the useful life of the glass-
melting furnace. Therefore, industry has a strong economic incentive to 
develop and use longer lasting refractories in construction of the 
glass-melting furnaces. Industry spokespersons have indicated that they 
rely on using chromium refractories offering longer glass-melting 
furnace life, and have commented that the EPA should regulate the 
chromium emissions from wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces rather 
than regulate chromium content of refractories. (Email from 
gobain.com">Lauren.P.Alterman@saint-gobain.com to persons at the EPA, July 27, 
2012, 10:32 a.m., regarding chrome emissions and refractory bricks.)
    We have also found that as the refractories of the gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces degrade, the chromium of those refractories at and 
above the metal/glass line is emitted as particulate to the outside 
air. Chromium from the refractories below the metal/glass line is 
absorbed into the molten glass and becomes vitrified with the other raw 
minerals. Industry commented that refractory loss from degradation of 
the refractory walls in use is approximately 20,000 pounds of 
refractory annually (minutes of the August 31, 2011 Meeting with 
Representatives of the Wool Fiberglass Industry and NAIMA). However, 
much of the loss occurs below the glass melt line. The chromium 
released below the glass melt line is believed to stay in the glass.
    The facility with the highest emitting glass-melting furnace (an 
oxyfuel glass-melting furnace) submitted chromium testing for state 
inventory reporting purposes over a seven-year period. As shown in 
Table 4 below, those test results are extrapolated using permitted 
production rates to calculate approximate annual emissions of chromium 
compounds. The calculations show that in 2004, chromium emissions are 
estimated to be less than 5 pounds annually. Repeated chromium 
emissions testing for the State reports in 2005 and 2008 and permitted 
production rates for those years show chromium emissions increased to 
540 pounds per year for the same glass-melting furnace. Emissions 
testing conducted in 2010 speciating chromium by its compounds show 
that 93 percent of the chromium was in the hexavalent state.

          Table 4--Summary of Chromium Emissions From 2004-2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Glass-melting furnace
                                                 chromium emissions at
                     Year                         permitted production
                                                 rate, pounds per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.........................................                        <5
2005.........................................                        30
2008.........................................                       114
2010.........................................                       540
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This glass-melting furnace was not reconstructed during this 7-year 
period covered by the chromium testing. This indicates that a 
degradation of the chromium refractory resulted in a significant 
increase in chromium emissions during this period. We collected source 
testing for all types of furnaces used in the wool fiberglass 
manufacturing industry. Specifically, each air-gas and oxyfuel furnace 
was tested, and facilities that operated identical electric furnaces 
provided testing for one furnace along with design, construction, and 
refractory information for all furnaces operated. Industry provided 
schematics of all types of furnace designs showing that while all wool 
fiberglass furnace `tanks' (holding the molten materials) are 
constructed of high chromium refractory, only the gas-fired furnaces 
may also be constructed from chromium refractories above the molten 
glass. In our review of all the data submitted, only gas-fired furnaces 
are designed in a manner that, during operation, may emit significant 
amounts of chromium compounds. We, therefore, believe that because the 
gas-fired furnaces are the only furnaces in which the chromium 
refractory is exposed to oxidizing conditions at temperatures exceeding 
1,300 [deg]F, gas-fired furnaces clearly demonstrate a greater 
potential for increased chromium emissions. While the highest emitting 
glass-melting furnace is located at a major source, we note, as we 
discussed in the proposed RTR rule, that there is no difference in a 
glass-melting furnace at a major source and the same design glass-
melting furnace at an area source facility.
    The thermal, physical and chemical properties of molten wool 
fiberglass cause corrosion and erosion to the refractory lining of the 
glass-melting furnace, and the glass-melting furnace must be 
constructed of materials capable of resisting this environment. Because 
oxygen burns very hot, some of the highest refractory performance 
requirements in the industry are placed upon wool fiberglass oxyfuel 
glass-melting furnaces (``New High Chrome Fused Cast Refractory for Use 
in Contact With Highly Corrosive Glasses'', T.A. Myles and F. Knee, in 
Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, The American Ceramic 
Society, 1986). Consequently, an oxyfuel glass-melting furnace used to 
produce wool fiberglass must be constructed of chromium refractories 
because these are the only types of materials currently available that 
are suitable for this use and meet the rigorous practical demands of 
wool fiberglass manufacturing. The industry has commented that the use 
of chromium refractories is economically essential to wool fiberglass 
manufacturing, because of normal high thermal and chemical stressors to 
oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces, chromium refractories are preferred by 
industry for economical and safe oxyfuel glass-melting furnace 
operation. Construction using these materials significantly increases 
the life of the glass-melting furnace (see Region 7 Notes on 
CertainTeed Kansas City. June 10, 2011. p. 5 of 13; email from 
gobain.com">Lauren.P.Alterman@saint-gobain.com to persons at the EPA, July 27, 
2012, 10:32 a.m., regarding chrome emissions and refractory bricks).
    In summary, because of the advantages of oxyfuel glass-melting 
furnaces over other wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace technology 
described in the preceding discussions, we expect oxyfuel glass-melting 
furnaces constructed of chromium refractories to replace many existing

[[Page 22382]]

wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces of other designs (Letter from 
NAIMA to Ms. Susan Fairchild, EPA, January 28, 2013), particularly as 
sources of industrial oxygen are sited near wool fiberglass facilities 
(Oxygen-Enhanced Combustion, Baukal, Charles E. Jr., Prince B. Eleazar 
III, and Bryan C. Hoke, Jr. 1998).
    Emissions of the other metal HAP are very low for electric glass-
melting furnaces. This low emission potential is inherent in the glass-
melting furnace design. Electric glass-melting furnaces establish a 
crust on the raw material at the surface of the molten glass. They use 
electrodes which are embedded below the crust and within the molten 
glass to maintain the temperature of the melt, while the temperature 
above the melt is low. They also have lower air flows and low 
turbulence above the glass melt. Therefore the potential for metal 
emissions (in the form of PM entrained in the exhaust gas) from 
electric glass-melting furnaces is much lower than from gas-fired 
glass-melting furnaces.
    Electric furnaces also do not have the same potential to emit 
chromium as gas-fired furnaces. Although electric glass-melting 
furnaces are lined at and below the glass/metal line with chromium 
refractories, they are constructed using either non-chromium 
refractories (cold-top electric) or steel in place of refractories 
(electric steel shell) above the glass/metal line. This design is used 
because electric glass-melting furnaces operate with a dry batch cover 
and are tapped at the bottom or end of the glass-melting furnace to 
draw off the molten glass. Raw materials are constantly added to the 
top of the glass-melting furnace in damp form and create a crust on top 
of the molten glass. Steel shell glass-melting furnaces have a steel 
enclosure above glass/metal the line and cold-top electric glass-
melting furnaces use non-chromium refractories above the glass/metal 
line. The air above the melt inside an electric glass-melting furnace 
is below 300 [deg]F, and is not hot enough to warrant use of chromium 
refractories. Even if chromium refractories were used to construct the 
crown of the electric glass-melting furnace, the temperature of an 
electric glass-melting furnace above the glass/metal line is 
insufficient to drive the chromium to its hexavalent state.
    Consequently, electric glass-melting furnaces do not have the same 
potential to emit chromium compounds that gas-fired glass-melting 
furnaces have, and accordingly, many of the chromium test data 
collected at electric glass-melting furnaces are below the detection 
level of the emissions measurement method. All the electric glass-
melting furnace test data were also below the proposed chromium limit 
for glass-melting furnaces at major sources in the November 25, 2011, 
proposed RTR rule amendments.
    Gas-fired furnaces also have a higher potential to emit PM, and 
consequently metal HAP. This is because gas-fired furnaces require that 
combustion air or oxygen and natural gas be blown into the furnace. 
This increases the gas flow velocities and turbulence above the glass 
melt tine, which increases the potential for particle entrainment in 
the exhaust gas.
    EPA's original intent was to regulate metal emissions from glass-
melting furnaces, which at that time included all existing furnaces. We 
have now determined that glass-melting furnaces at area source and 
major source facilities have the same emissions profiles. Therefore, it 
is appropriate to add glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities to the area source list, and as previously 
noted we have the statutory authority to do so. However, gas-fired 
furnaces have a greater emissions potential than electric furnaces. 
Metal HAP emissions from electric glass-melting furnaces are inherently 
low, and more importantly, the potential to emit elevated amounts of 
chromium are low. Therefore we are limiting this listing to the 
furnaces with the greatest emissions potential, which are the gas-fired 
furnaces. In addition, due to certain source category specific facts, 
we are proposing limits for both PM and a separate limit for chromium. 
(See Memo to File ``Development of Background Information on Proposed 
Area Source Emissions Limits'', March 15, 2013.)
    Wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces that are hybrid gas-fired 
and electric glass-melting furnaces would be included in this action; 
wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces that are all-electric would not 
be included. Therefore, in today's action we are proposing PM and 
chromium compounds emission limits that would apply to gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 
that are area sources. Electric glass-melting furnaces located at area 
sources would not be subject to this proposed rule.
    In today's proposal, we are soliciting comment on whether to 
regulate only gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at area sources 
or to regulate all glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities that are area sources. In addition we are 
soliciting comment on the pollutants regulated.

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule for glass-
melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?

    The emission points covered by this proposed area source rule were 
selected to ensure control of chromium compounds and other metal HAP 
emissions from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at area 
sources. We are proposing to establish numerical emission limits in the 
form of mass of pollutant (chromium compounds and PM) per mass of glass 
pulled through the glass-melting furnace. The same format is used for 
emission limits in both the area and the major source rules.
    The emission limits in the proposed rule provide flexibility for 
the regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any 
control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather 
than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method that may 
not be appropriate in every case. The EPA solicits comment on the 
format of the proposed standards.

C. How did the EPA determine the proposed emission standards for glass-
melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?

    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of 
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under 
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for 
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control 
technologies [``GACT''] or management practices by such sources to 
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' Further, legislative 
history describes GACT as standards reflecting application of generally 
available control technology, that is, ``methods, practices and 
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for 
application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts 
and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the 
emissions control systems'' (S. Rep. 101-228 (December 20, 1989). In 
addition to technical capabilities of the facilities and availabilities 
of control measures, legislative history suggests that we may consider 
costs and economic impacts in determining GACT.
    In this proposed rule, we are setting emission standards to address 
emissions of chromium compounds and other metal HAP from wool 
fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces (i.e. cadmium, beryllium, 
manganese, lead, and arsenic). In determining what

[[Page 22383]]

constitutes GACT for this proposed rule, we considered the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
gas-fired wool fiberglass furnaces at area sources by examining 
relevant data and information, including information collected from all 
known wool fiberglass manufacturing sources. We also considered the 
risk and technology review standards proposed for major sources (76 FR 
72770, November 25, 2011), to determine if the control technologies and 
management practices proposed for the major sources are generally 
available to area sources as well. Finally, we considered the costs of 
available control technologies and management practices on area 
sources.
    In setting GACT we look to the control technologies generally 
available for major and area sources. From the information that we have 
collected to date in conjunction with this rulemaking, which includes 
stack testing and site visits at both major and area sources, we know 
that area sources have the same types of emissions, emission sources, 
and controls as major sources. Gas-fired wool fiberglass glass-melting 
furnaces at major and area sources are using the same control 
technologies (baghouses or electrostatic precipitators). The available 
emission data show no discernible differences between area source and 
major source furnaces. In fact, when a major source facility becomes an 
area source, the furnace emission and emissions controls do not change. 
Therefore, the control technologies used by major sources are generally 
available for area sources.
    The data in the record show that major and area source furnaces are 
equipped with technologies that effectively control chromium and metal 
HAP emissions, including, but not limited to, ESPs and fabric filters. 
In determining GACT, we examined different levels of control using 
these generally available control technologies and evaluated the cost 
of such control. We are proposing a PM emissions limit of 0.33 lb/ton 
glass pulled, and a chromium emissions limit of 6.5 x 10-5 
lb/ton glass pulled. We are proposing these limits because they reflect 
a level of control that can be achieved cost-effectively using 
generally available control technologies and management practices. See 
Development of Background Information on Proposed Area Source Emissions 
Limit, March 15, 2013.
    We estimate no costs or emission reductions associated with the 
proposed PM standard because the record shows that all the gas-fired 
area source furnaces are currently meeting the proposed emissions 
limit. Significantly, however, the proposed PM limit will codify 
current actual current PM emissions levels to prevent any future 
increase in PM emissions. Without the proposed limits, these furnaces 
could increase PM emissions at any time as they are no longer subject 
to Subpart NNN.
    There are three area source gas-fired furnaces that currently do 
not meet the proposed GACT for chromium. However, data are available 
for industries with similar control requirements that demonstrate that 
there are effective chromium control technologies available. We 
searched other industries for controls that would remove chromium and 
found that a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) scrubber is used in both high 
temperature metallurgical industries and in the chromium electroplating 
industry for removal of hexavalent chromium.\16\ Based on the 
effectiveness of this technology on to two different types of exhaust 
gas streams, we believe this control technology is transferable to wool 
fiberglass furnaces. Though there are currently no NaOH scrubbers 
applied in the wool fiberglass industry, there is currently one gas-
fired furnace equipped with a PM control followed by a wet scrubber for 
SO2 control. This is directly analogous to using a NaOH wet 
scrubber downstream of the PM controls to achieve additional chromium 
removal. Assuming that the facilities not currently meeting the 
proposed chromium emission limit opted to use the NaOH scrubbers to 
achieve compliance, the cost of the proposed chromium emissions limit 
is $7,600 per pound of chromium. This is a reasonable cost given that 
chromium is an urban air toxic and that a significant portion of the 
chromium emitted from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces is hexavalent 
chromium, which is extremely toxic and carcinogenic even in low 
amounts. We note that we found $11,000 per pound chromium removed to be 
a reasonable cost in the final Chromium Electroplating RTR rulemaking, 
where we regulated chromium compounds (77 FR 59220, September 19, 
2012). For information on the methodology and more detailed results of 
this analysis, see the memorandum, Costs and Emission Reductions for 
the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP--Area Sources, in the 
docket and section V.B of this preamble. We did, however, examine lower 
limits and the costs associated therewith. See Development of 
Background Information on Proposed Area Source Emissions Limit, March 
15, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NaOH Scrubber Information. Telephone discussion and emails 
between vendors, companies and EPA. Steffan Johnson, Measurement 
Policy Group. USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed limits for area sources are identical to the limits we 
have proposed for furnaces located at major sources as part of our 
technology review under 112(d)(6). It is reasonable that the limits for 
major and area sources be the same, especially, where, as here, there 
are no discernible differences between area and major source furnaces. 
Accordingly, we are proposing GACT standards for PM and chromium. We 
solicit comment on the proposed GACT standards for PM and chromium.

D. How did the EPA determine the compliance and monitoring requirements 
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources proposed rule?

    We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements to assure continuous compliance with the 
requirements of the proposed rule and that are consistent with the 
major source rule requirements in subpart NNN. In fact, the specific 
requirements in the proposed rule reference the requirements in Sec.  
63.1386 of subpart NNN. We solicit comment on the proposed compliance 
and monitoring requirements for area sources. These proposed 
requirements impose on facilities the minimum burden that is necessary 
to ensure compliance with the proposed rule.

E. How did the EPA determine compliance dates for the proposed Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources rule?

    Section 112 of the CAA provides limits for the dates by which 
affected sources must comply with the emission standards. New or 
reconstructed units would be required to be in compliance with the 
final rule immediately upon startup, or the date the final rule is 
published in the Federal Register, whichever is later. The proposed 
rule allows existing area sources up to one year to comply with the 
final rule. The CAA provides that existing sources must comply as 
expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 years after promulgation 
of the final NESHAP. We do not believe that 3 years for compliance is 
necessary to allow adequate time to design, install, and test control 
systems. All facilities currently already meet the proposed PM limit. 
If an area source must apply additional control to meet the chromium 
limit, we believe one year is adequate time given

[[Page 22384]]

the fact that there is only one pollutant involved, and the available 
chromium control technology can be added downstream of the current PM 
controls and is a well established technology. However, sources can 
always petition their permitting authorities to allow for additional 
time to install controls pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B). We solicit 
comment on the proposed compliance dates for area sources.

F. How did the EPA determine recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources proposed rule?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to develop regulations that 
include requirements for reporting the results of testing and 
monitoring performed to determine compliance with the standards. In 
today's action, we are proposing sources be required to comply with the 
applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 
40 CFR part 63, as referenced in Table 1 of the proposed rule. We 
evaluated the General Provisions requirements, and included those we 
determined to be the minimum notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
necessary to ensure compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the 
proposed rule. The reports that we are proposing to be required are 
found in 40 CFR 63.886 of the proposed rule.
    We also determined the necessary records that need to be kept to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits. 
These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the today's 
proposed rule, and in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63. The 
recordkeeping requirements are found in 40 CFR 63.886 of the proposed 
rule. We are proposing that records be kept for 5 years in a form 
suitable and readily available for EPA review. We are proposing that 
records be kept on site for 2 years. Records may be kept off site for 
the remaining 3 years.
    The General Provisions include specific requirements for 
notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting. The reports are specified 
in proposed 40 CFR 63.886.
    The notification of compliance status report required by 40 CFR 
63.9(h) must include certifications of compliance with rule 
requirements. The excess emissions and continuous system performance 
report and summary report required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of the NESHAP 
General Provisions (referred to in the rule as a compliance report) 
would be required to be submitted semiannually for reporting periods 
during which there was an exceedance of any emission limit, or a 
monitored parameter, or when a deviation from any of the requirements 
in the rule occurred, or if any process changes occurred, and 
compliance certifications were reevaluated.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 
Rule

    The impacts presented in this section include the air quality, 
cost, non-air quality and economic impacts of complying with the 
proposed rule for wool fiberglass manufacturing located at facilities 
that are area sources to comply with the proposed rule.

A. What are the air impacts for the proposed Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing area source rule?

    We have estimated the potential emission reductions from 
implementation of the proposed emission standards to be 50 pounds of 
chromium compounds per year.
    We estimated emission reductions of the proposed rule for each gas-
fired glass-melting furnace. For all emission points, we first 
calculated emissions at the current level of control for each facility 
(referred to as the baseline level of control), and at the proposed 
level of control. We calculated emission reductions as the difference 
between the proposed level and baseline.

B. What are the cost impacts for the proposed Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing area source rule?

    We considered the costs and benefits of achieving the proposed 
emission limits and identified five facilities with a total of eight 
glass-melting furnaces that would be subject to the proposed 
requirements. All eight glass-melting furnaces would have to conduct 
annual testing to demonstrate compliance. Based on the emission testing 
conducted in 2011 and 2012, three of the eight glass-melting furnaces 
would need to reduce their emissions to meet the proposed chromium 
compound emission limits. We found that the use of a sodium hydroxide 
scrubber is effective in reducing emissions of hexavalent chromium from 
other industrial processes and that the technology can be transferred 
to this industry sector. We estimated the capital cost for a sodium 
hydroxide scrubber to be $250,000 and the total annualized costs, 
including operating costs, to be $100,000.
    Costs are also incurred for compliance testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the proposed rule. Based 
on the most recent test data provided, all eight glass-melting furnaces 
currently meet the proposed PM emission limit.
    Because the scrubbers will be installed on three furnaces, the 
industry-wide total capital investment will be $750,000. We estimate 
that the total annualized cost of these controls will be $300,000, in 
2011 dollars. The annual performance testing costs are $10,000 per gas-
fired glass-melting furnace. Since there are a total of eight gas-fired 
glass-melting furnaces at the five facilities, the total annual testing 
cost is $80,000. The estimated HAP reduction is 50 pounds of chromium 
compounds resulting in overall cost effectiveness of $7,600 per pound 
of HAP reduced.
    While we do not anticipate the construction of any new wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities in the next 5 years, we do expect 
most, if not all, of the 10 major source facilities to convert to non-
HAP binders and become area sources. However, we did not estimate new 
source cost impacts for any additional facilities to avoid double 
counting the costs associated with the major source rule (subpart NNN) 
with similar gas-fired glass-melting furnace requirements. Table 5 
below presents the costs to wool fiberglass area sources.

  Table 5--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source Standards
                                               (NN) in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Est.      Est. total
       Proposed amendment           capital     annualized  Total HAP emissions  Cost effectiveness     Number
                                   cost ($MM)   cost ($MM)       reductions                           facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of NaOH scrubber...     0.25 x 3      0.1 x 3  50 pounds per year.  7,600 ($ per                  2
                                                                                  pound).

[[Page 22385]]

 
Additional testing and                      0     0.01 x 8  N/A................                                5
 monitoring for glass-melting
 furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Costs and Emission 
Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP--Area 
Sources, and is available in the docket.

C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy 
impacts for the proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area source 
rule?

    We anticipate that three gas-fired glass-melting furnaces would 
need to apply additional controls to meet the proposed chromium 
emission limits. These controls, sodium hydroxide scrubbers, use water. 
We estimate an annual requirement of 4.8 million gallons per year of 
additional wastewater would be generated as a result of additional 
water used for scrubbers.
    The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed emission 
limits would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run 
added or improved air pollution control devices. By our estimate, we 
anticipate that an additional 1,000 megawatt-hours per year would be 
required for the additional and improved control devices.
    We anticipate the secondary air impacts from adding controls to 
meet the standards to be minimal. The combustion of fuel needed to 
generate additional electricity would yield slight increases in 
NOX, CO, SO2 emissions. Since NOX and 
SO2 emissions and electric generating units are covered by 
capped emissions trading programs, we do not estimate an increase in 
secondary air impacts for these pollutants for this rule form 
additional electricity demand. The combustion of additional fuel from 
additional electrical usage and supplemental fuel for incineration 
devices would yield CO emissions of less than 0.1 tpy. The analyses are 
documented in the memorandum, Secondary Impacts of the Proposed Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP--Area Sources, which is available in 
the docket.

D. What are the economic impacts of the proposed Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing area source rule?

    We performed an economic impact analysis for wool fiberglass 
consumers and producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs 
estimated for this proposed rule. The impacts to producers affected by 
this proposed rule are annualized costs of less than 0.01 percent of 
their revenues, using the most current year available for revenue data. 
Prices and output for wool fiberglass products should increase by no 
more than the impact on cost to revenues for producers; thus, wool 
fiberglass prices should increase by less than 0.01 percent. Hence, the 
overall economic impact of this proposed rule should be low on the 
affected industries and their consumers. For more information, please 
refer to the Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for this 
proposed rulemaking that is in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042).

VI. What are the proposed changes to Mineral Wool Production (Subpart 
DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) major source 
rules?

    On November 25, 2011, the EPA proposed revisions to the Mineral 
Wool and the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 
subparts DDD and NNN, respectively, to address the results of the 
residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to 
conduct under sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2)(76 FR 72812). Today's 
notice also proposes several revisions, corrections and clarifications 
to that proposal.

A. Subpart DDD--Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule

    Based on comments on the November 2011 proposal and new data 
supplied by the industry, we are proposing the following revisions to 
the major source rule amendments:
    (1) In response to the limits proposed on November 25, 2011, we 
received raw material content information from the seven facilities 
producing mineral wool in the U.S. Of the seven facilities, three 
reported using slag and four reported only using minerals (rock) and 
coke (e.g., ``no slag''). Slag is a waste by-product from the iron and 
steel industry and is location-specific depending on the type of 
facility/process generating the slag. Some slags have residual 
fluorides or chlorides which vary from location to location and from 
process to process. In response to this information, we are proposing 
to subcategorize the mineral wool cupolas into two categories: Those 
that process slag materials and those that do not. Based on this 
subcategorization, we are proposing revised standards for HCl and HF.
    The revised limits being proposed today are summarized in Table 6 
below:

                          Table 6--HCl and HF Emission Limits for Mineral Wool Cupolas
                                                [lb/ton of melt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 2013 Proposed
                                                                             2013 Proposed         limit for
                                                         2011 Proposed         limit for      existing, new, and
                      Pollutant                          limit for all    existing, new, and     reconstructed
                                                            cupolas          reconstructed     cupolas not using
                                                                          cupolas using slag         slag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.................................................              0.0096                0.21                0.43
HF..................................................               0.014                0.16                0.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22386]]

     (2) We are also proposing revised COS emission limits for cupolas 
based on additional information regarding cupola design supported by 
test data provided by industry in their comments on the November 2011 
proposal. In response to the information provided, we are proposing to 
subcategorize cupolas into closed-top and open-top cupolas. The revised 
COS emission limits being proposed in this action are summarized in 
Table 7 below:

                              Table 7--COS Emission Limits for Mineral Wool Cupolas
                                                [lb/ton of melt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             2011 Proposed       2013 Proposed
                                     2011 Proposed       2013 Proposed     limit for new and   limit for new and
               COS                limit for existing  limit for existing     reconstructed       reconstructed
                                        cupolas             cupolas             cupolas             cupolas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closed-Top......................                 3.3                 3.4               0.017               0.025
Open-Top........................                 3.3                 6.8               0.017                 4.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) The formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emission limits for 
combined collection/curing operations proposed on November 25, 2011, 
have been revised based on comments and additional facility 
information. The revised limits being proposed in this action are 
summarized in Table 8 below. As a result of new test data, limits for 
vertical and drum collection/curing would increase compared to the 
limits previously proposed on November 25, 2011.

  Table 8--Emission Limits for Mineral Wool Combined Collection/Curing
                               Operations
                            [lb/ton of melt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2011 Proposed    2013 Proposed
                                             limit            limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curing & Drum Collection
    Formaldehyde......................          0.067              0.18
    Phenol............................          0.0023             1.3
    Methanol..........................          0.00077            0.48
Curing & Vertical Collection
    Formaldehyde......................          0.46               2.7
    Phenol............................          0.52               0.74
    Methanol..........................          0.63               1.0
Curing & Horizontal Collection
    Formaldehyde......................          0.054              0.054
    Phenol............................          0.15               0.15
    Methanol..........................          0.022              0.022
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The updated draft risk assessment, located in the docket for this 
rulemaking, is based on actual emissions currently emitted by the 
industry. Due to new formaldehyde emissions data that were provided by 
the industry our estimate of risk from actual emissions has increased 
slightly compared to the risk assessment conducted for the November 25, 
2011, proposal. The risk from mineral wool production is driven by 
formaldehyde. The MIR at proposal for actual baseline emissions was 4-
in-1 million. The allowable MIR was estimated to be 10-in-1 million. 
The post control emissions MIR was estimated to be 4-in-1 million.
    The actual MIR increased to 10-in-1 million, acute noncancer HQ 
increased from eight to 22 and the AEGL-1 increased from 0.4 to 1.1 
based on the new test data characterizing actual emissions. While the 
risk increased slightly, we note that it is still very low, is 
evaluated using conservative methods, and is still well within a level 
we consider acceptable (that is, less than 100-in-1 million).
    (4) We are proposing definitions for open-top cupolas, closed-top 
cupolas and slag.
    (5) The Part 63 GP have been amended seven times since they were 
first promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 12430), and subpart DDD cites to the 
GP requirements as they appeared in 1999. As a result, numerous 
citations to the GP appear in subpart DDD that have since changed. In 
today's action, we propose technical corrections to GP citations to 
accurately reflect the GP as they now appear.
    (6) In response to industry comments we are proposing to remove the 
requirement for PM testing by EPA method 202 contained in the original 
proposal. The PM emission limits were based on testing that measured 
only filterable particulate. Including Method 202 as a required test 
method would measure condensible particulate, which was not accounted 
for in determining the PM limit.

B. Subpart NNN--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule

    Based on comments on the November 2011 proposal and new data 
supplied by the industry, we are proposing the following revisions to 
the major source rule amendments:
    (1) At the time of the November 25, 2011 proposal, we proposed that 
all glass-melting furnaces (electric or gas-fired) located at major 
sources would be subject to the limit for chromium compounds we 
proposed pursuant to 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). However, because of 
information we have developed since the November 25 proposal, we are 
now only proposing to apply the chromium emissions limit for glass-
melting furnaces to furnaces fired with gas. This would include 
oxyfuel, recuperative air gas, air gas, and hybrid electric and air gas 
furnaces. Comments received indicated that a separate chromium limit is 
not necessary for electric furnaces. (See section IV.A of this preamble 
for more information) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces would be 
required to limit their emissions of

[[Page 22387]]

chromium compounds to no more than 0.06 pounds of chromium compounds 
per thousand tons of glass pulled (6 x 10-5 lb/ton). Glass-
melting furnaces emitting at rates less than 75 percent of the proposed 
limit would be able to reduce their testing frequency from annually to 
every 3 years. Glass-melting furnaces emitting at or above 75 percent 
of the proposed limit would be required to test annually, as described 
in the performance test requirements (see section 63.884) of the 
proposed rule.
    (2) Consistent with our intent to propose PM standards resulting 
from our technology review, under section 112(d)(6), we are revising 
the PM limit for all glass-melting furnaces from 0.5 to 0.33 lb PM per 
ton glass pulled. The limits proposed in the November 25, 2011, notice 
(76 FR 72815) were calculated incorrectly and did not reflect the 
technology review results as described in that notice. The revised 
limits proposed in today's action are based on our technology review 
and reflect our analysis of the level of control being achieved by the 
majority of the industry using baghouses and electrostatic 
precipitators.
    (3) We are proposing work practice standards for control of HF and 
HCl emissions from furnaces, instead of the emission limits in the 
November 25, 2011, proposal. During the comment period, we received 
comment from industry that most of the test data revealed results that 
were below the detection limits (BDL) of the method. Upon reexamination 
of our analysis of the acid gas data, we found that over 80 percent of 
the HF and HCl test data were BDL, and as such we now agree with the 
commenter and believe that rather than a numerical emission limit, a 
work practice standard is appropriate for this case. We are therefore 
proposing a work practice standard for HF and HCl emissions from 
furnaces. (See Memo to File ``Development of Background Information on 
Proposed Area Source Emissions Limits'', March 15, 2013.)
    Under section 112(h) of the CAA, the EPA may 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 in the Act to apply to any situation ``in which 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 regards situations where, as here, the majority of the 
measurements are below the detection limit as being a situation where 
measurement is not ``technologically practicable'' within the meaning 
of section 112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA. (See 76 FR 25046 where EPA proposed 
set work practice standards for dioxins and organic HAP for utility 
boilers.) Unreliable measurements raise issues of practicability and of 
feasibility and enforceability (see section 112(h)(1)). The application 
of measurement methodology in this situation would also not be 
``practicable due to * * * economic limitation'' within the meaning of 
section 112(h)(2)(B) since it would just result in cost expended to 
produce analytically suspect measurements.
    (4) In the November 25, 2011 proposal we proposed new MACT emission 
limits for RS lines for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. In today's 
proposal, we are revising the emission limits for RS lines based on 
clarification of test data received from the industry during the 
comment period. During the data collection phase, we required companies 
to provide test data on bonded lines even if these lines had phased out 
the use of formaldehyde and were not producing a product that was 
subject to Subpart NNN. Many companies did not distinguish between the 
bonded lines that still used formaldehyde and those that did not. We 
mistakenly included some data for HAP-free lines with the data for 
lines still using formaldehyde. Today's notice proposes to correct that 
error and to propose revised emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol 
and methanol from RS manufacturing lines summarized in Table 9 of this 
preamble.

                          Table 9--Emission Limits for Rotary Spin Manufacturing Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Current limit
                             HAP                                 (1999 rule)     2011 Proposal    2013 Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Existing Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde.................................................              1.2          0.17                0.19
Phenol.......................................................  ...............          0.19                0.26
Methanol.....................................................  ...............          0.48                0.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              New or Reconstructed Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde.................................................              0.8          0.020              0.087
Phenol.......................................................  ...............          0.0011             0.063
Methanol.....................................................  ...............          0.00067             0.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) In the original NESHAP, FA lines were subcategorized by product 
(heavy density wool fiberglass verses pipe product). In the November 
25, 2011 proposal we included new MACT emission limits for FA lines for 
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol that applied to both heavy density 
wool fiberglass and pipe product. However, we did not clearly state 
that we were eliminating the FA line subcategories that existed in the 
original NESHAP. We are proposing to eliminate subcategories of FA 
manufacturing lines because we no longer believe that a technical basis 
exists to distinguish these subcategories. As part of rule development, 
industry provided test data that they claimed was representative of FA 
lines for both product types. The 2011 and 2012 ICR response data 
indicate that only one company uses FA processes to produce several 
different products on the same lines. This is the company that provided 
the test data on which the limits for FA lines are based.
    (6) As with the amendments to subpart DDD discussed in section 
VI(A)(5) of this preamble, we are proposing to make technical 
corrections to the GP citations in the rule. These amendments would 
serve to accurately identify the requirements of the GP that apply to 
subpart NNN.
    (7) An industry commenter stated that for measuring the 
concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol the use of the 
proposed EPA Method 318 can result in non-quantifiable levels

[[Page 22388]]

that are inappropriate to determine the proposed emission limits. The 
commenter requested the option to determine all organics by EPA Method 
318 or, alternatively, to determine formaldehyde by EPA Method 316; 
determine phenol by EPA Method 8270D; and determine methanol by EPA 
Method 308. The EPA agrees that EPA Method 318 may result in non-
quantifiable levels that are inappropriate for compliance 
determination. Therefore we are proposing to allow compliance testing 
with EPA Method 318 for all organics or, alternatively, to determine 
formaldehyde by EPA Method 316; determine phenol by EPA Method 8270D; 
and determine methanol by EPA Method 308.
    (8) In the November 25, 2011 proposal, we proposed to require 
Method 0061 to measure chromium compounds. An industry commenter stated 
that most existing compliance tests require the use of EPA Method 29 to 
measure chromium compounds, and asked us to allow Method 29 to also be 
acceptable for measuring chromium compounds. We agree with the 
commenter that Method 29 is an acceptable method for this purpose, and 
we propose to also allow compliance testing with EPA Method 29 for 
total chromium compounds.

C. Revisions to Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

    In the proposed rules for mineral wool and wool fiberglass to which 
this supplemental proposal is added, the EPA proposed the removal of 
the exemptions pertaining to periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction, and proposed standards that apply at all times. This 
supplemental proposal does not change those proposed standards.
    In our proposal to revise subparts DDD and NNN for major sources, 
we proposed the elimination of the startup and shutdown exemption and 
other related requirements, including eliminating the requirement to 
develop and maintain a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 
However, in the proposal notice, we neglected to revise section 
63.1386(c), which contains planning, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements related to startup and shutdown. In this supplemental 
proposal, we are correcting this oversight and replacing prior 
requirements with recordkeeping and reporting appropriate to standards 
applicable at all times.
    Consistent with our intent to revise the requirements related to 
SSM, we proposed several revisions to Table 1 (the General Provisions 
Applicability Table). The changes in the supplemental proposal here 
correctly correspond to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
related to the rule revisions as proposed in 76 FR 72770.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the revisions we are proposing 
to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the 
absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on 
whether we have successfully done so.
    As we proposed, the Subpart DDD emissions limits apply at all 
times. In the proposed RTR rule, we did not define the periods of 
startup or shutdown. In light of the comments received on the proposed 
rule, which raise questions as to when startup and shutdown begin and 
end, we are proposing definitions of startup and shutdown. We are 
proposing to define startup to be when the coke interspersed with 
layers of rock and/or slag and other mineral products are ignited. We 
are proposing startup as ending when molten mineral wool begins to flow 
from the cupola. We are proposing to add a definition of shutdown to be 
when the cupola has reached the end of the melting campaign and is 
empty.
    As was the case with wool fiberglass furnaces, the uncontrolled 
emissions from a mineral wool cupola are expected to be lower during 
startup and shutdown periods than during other operating periods due to 
lower temperatures, and in the case of shutdown less raw materials. 
Therefore, if a source continues to route the exhaust to the air 
emissions control equipment, and operate that equipment consistent with 
the operating parameters established during the last successful 
compliance test, the source would be expected to maintain compliance 
with the emissions limits during startup and shutdown. Therefore, we 
are proposing a compliance alternative allowing sources to demonstrate 
compliance with the emissions limits during startup and shutdown by 
keeping records establishing that its emissions were routed to the air 
pollution control devices, and these control devices were operated at 
the parameters established by the most recent performance test that 
showed compliance with the emissions limit.
    For subpart NNN we are also retaining the requirements that the 
emissions limits apply at all times, including startup and shutdown. 
For the reasons previously discussed in III.D, we are adding a 
compliance alternative for startup and shutdown of all furnaces that a 
facility keep records demonstrating that emissions are routed to the 
air pollution control devices, and all applicable control devices were 
operated at the same parameters as they were operated during the most 
recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.
    Electric cold-top furnaces are controlled differently than other 
furnace types. In this case cold-top glass-melting furnaces could 
demonstrate compliance by melting only cullet until a crust on the 
batch cover has been established. Cullet has a lower emissions 
potential than other raw materials typically used. Therefore, limiting 
the raw material to only cullet during startup will result in lower 
emissions. We are also adding a requirement that all other glass-
melting furnaces could demonstrate compliance during startup by 
preheating the empty glass-melting furnace using only natural gas.
    As with the amendments to subpart DDD discussed in section VI(A)(5) 
of this preamble, we are proposing to make technical corrections to the 
GP citations in the rule. These amendments would serve to accurately 
identify the requirements of the GP that apply to subpart NNN.
    Finally, we are also proposing affirmative defense language that 
differs in some respects from the language we proposed in November of 
2011. For example, we have used the term ``exceedance'' rather than the 
term ``violation'' in several places. We have also eliminated the two-
day notification requirement and the directive that off-shift and 
overtime labor be used to the extent practicable to make repairs and 
have revised the reporting requirement deadlines. We are asking for 
comments on the language we have proposed today that differs from the 
language proposed in November 2011.

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to Mineral Wool Production 
(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) Major 
Source Rules

A. Subpart DDD--Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule

    Emissions of COS and formaldehyde from mineral wool production 
facilities have declined over the last decade as a result of federal 
rules, state rules and on the industry's own initiative. Today's 
proposed amendments would maintain emissions of COS, formaldehyde, 
phenol or methanol emissions at their current low levels.
    We do not anticipate any adverse water quality or solid waste 
impacts from the proposed amendments to the 1999 MACT rule because the 
proposed requirements would not change the

[[Page 22389]]

existing requirements that impact water quality or solid waste.
    The estimated cost impacts have been reduced from those in the 
November 25, 2011, proposal. In the November 2011 RTR proposal, we 
estimated the total annualized costs from the rule as $548,000. Those 
cost estimates included $360,000 for low sulfur coke and other raw 
materials and $243,000 for additional testing and monitoring. In that 
proposal, annual testing was required for sources to comply with the 
rule. In this supplemental proposal, we reevaluated those costs and the 
compliance testing frequency, and the costs presented below in Table 10 
wholly replace those estimated in the November 2011 proposed rule. As 
explained in section VI.A. of this preamble, the EPA is establishing 
subcategories for mineral wool based on (1) whether slag is included in 
the raw materials melted in the cupola(s), and (2) whether the line has 
a closed-top cupola or an open-top cupola. All existing lines with 
closed-top cupolas are fitted with RTO which convert the high 
concentrations of COS in the cupola exhaust gas to energy that is 
returned to the cupola. This technology reduces the consumption of coke 
up to 30 percent and, because of the cost of coke, this technology pays 
for itself over a period of several years. Emissions of COS are below 
0.03 lb COS per ton melt when an RTO is installed for energy recovery 
and new source MACT for closed-top cupolas is based upon the use of 
this technology. Open-top cupolas do not accommodate RTO. Today's 
proposed rule establishes a limit of 4.3 lbs COS per ton melt for new 
lines with open-top cupolas, and 6.8 lbs COS per ton melt for existing 
lines. All lines currently in operation can meet this limit without new 
control equipment or different input materials, and thus will not incur 
additional costs.
    The total annualized costs for these proposed amendments are 
estimated at $59,200 (2011 dollars) for additional testing and 
monitoring. Note also that the cost impacts for today's proposed rule 
are about 10 percent of those proposed in November 2011. This reduction 
in cost is due to two factors. First, we have subcategorized cupolas 
according to design and use of slag. Second, cost changes for testing 
and monitoring are due to a reduced frequency of testing: from annual 
required under the proposed rule to testing every 5 years under this 
supplemental proposal. Other differences also affect the cost 
comparison. These include one new source in the source category (Roxul 
in Mississippi) and the change from cost estimates based upon 2010 
dollars to 2011 dollars. Table 10 below provides a summary of the 
estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with today's 
proposed amendments to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP.

   Table 10--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Mineral Wool Production Proposed Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Total HAP         Cost
                                                     Estimated       Estimated       emissions     effectiveness
               Proposed amendment                  capital cost     annual cost     reductions     in $ per ton
                                                       ($MM)           ($MM)         (tons per       total HAP
                                                                                       year)         reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional testing and monitoring...............               0           0.059             N/A             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Subpart NNN--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule

    We evaluated the impacts to the affected sources based on all 
available information. Two significant sources were the 2010 and 2011/
2012 emissions testing and subsequent conversations with NAIMA and 
individuals operating industry facilities. According to the 2010 and 
2012 emissions test data, there are three glass-melting furnaces at two 
facilities that do not meet the proposed chromium compound emission 
limit.
    Our assessment of impacts is based on the data from tested glass-
melting furnaces only, and may not be representative of untested glass-
melting furnaces. We anticipate that 10 of the 30 wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities currently operating in the United States are 
currently major sources and would be affected by these proposed 
amendments. We estimate that two of the 10 wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities that are major sources would install air 
pollution controls.
    We expect that today's proposed RTR amendments would result in 
reductions of 442 pounds of chromium compounds. Hexavalent chromium can 
be as much as 93 percent of the total chromium compounds emitted from 
wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces.
    We believe that all affected facilities will be able to comply with 
the today's proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl without 
additional controls, and that there will be no measurable reduction in 
emissions of these gases. Also, we anticipate that there will be no 
reductions in PM emissions due to these proposed PM standards because 
all sources currently meet the revised PM limit.
    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices. We do not anticipate significant 
secondary impacts from the proposed amendments to the Wool Fiberglass 
MACT.
    The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the 
ability of each facility to meet the proposed emissions limits for PM, 
chromium compounds, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol. The memorandum, 
Cost Impacts of the Proposed NESHAP RTR Amendments for the Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category, includes a complete 
description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is 
available in the docket.
    Under today's proposed amendments, eight of the 10 major source 
wool fiberglass facilities will not to incur any capital costs to 
comply with the proposed emissions limits. Five facilities would be 
subject to new costs for compliance testing on gas-fired glass-melting 
furnaces, which will total $80,000 annually for the entire industry. At 
this time, there are two facilities with a total of three gas-fired 
glass-melting furnaces that do not meet the proposed emissions limit 
for chromium compounds. We anticipate that these facilities would 
install a sodium hydroxide scrubber on each of three glass-melting 
furnaces, for a total capital cost of $750,000. The total annualized 
cost for the scrubbers, including operating and maintenance costs, is 
estimated to be $300,000. There are a total of eight gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces located at five major source facilities. Annual 
performance testing costs would be $10,000 per glass-melting furnace, 
resulting in total glass-melting furnace testing costs of $80,000.
    The 10 major source facilities would incur total annualized costs 
of $80,400

[[Page 22390]]

for additional compliance testing on their FA and RS manufacturing 
lines and six of those facilities would incur a total cost of $750,000 
for operation and maintenance of their existing thermal oxidizers due 
to the proposed rule emission limits. The total annualized costs for 
the proposed amendments are estimated at $1.21 million (2011 dollars).
    Table 11 below summarizes the costs and emission reductions 
associated with the proposed amendments.

 Table 11--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Standards
                                              (NNN) in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Est.      Est. total
       Proposed amendment           capital     annualized  Total HAP emissions  Cost effectiveness     Number
                                   cost ($MM)   cost ($MM)       reductions                           facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Gas-Fired Glass-Melting Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of NaOH scrubber...     0.25 x 3      0.1 x 3  455 pounds per year  835 ($ per pound).            2
Additional testing and                      0     0.01 x 8  N/A................                                5
 monitoring for gas-fired glass-
 melting furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          RS and FA Manufacturing Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance of                0        0.750  123 tons per year..  6750 ($ per ton)..            6
 thermal oxidizer.
Additional testing and                      0        0.080  N/A................                               10
 monitoring for FA and RS lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel 
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs 
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in 
Costs and Emission Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing NESHAP--Area Source, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
1042. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action 
and the analysis is briefly summarized in section V.B of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2481.01.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to 
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The requirements discussed below 
pertain only to the proposed area source rule. The requirements for the 
major source rule remain unchanged from the November 2011 proposal.
    The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the 
control devices, and some notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements 
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. 
The information collection activities in this ICR include the 
following: Performance tests, operating parameter monitoring, 
preparation of a site-specific monitoring plan, monitoring and 
inspection, one-time and periodic reports, and the maintenance of 
records. Some information collection activities included in the NESHAP 
may occur within the first 3 years, and are presented in this burden 
estimate, but may not occur until 4 or 5 years following promulgation 
of the proposed standards for some affected sources. To be conservative 
in our estimate, the burden for these items is included in this ICR. An 
initial notification is required to notify the Designated Administrator 
of the applicability of this subpart, and to identify gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces subject to this subpart. A notification of performance 
test must be submitted, and a site-specific test plan written for the 
performance test, along with a monitoring plan. Following the initial 
performance test, you must submit a notification of compliance status 
that documents the performance test and the values for the operating 
parameters. A periodic report submitted every six months documents the 
values for the operating parameters and deviations. Owners or operators 
of wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities are required to keep 
records of certain parameters and information for a period of 5 years. 
The annual testing, annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping 
burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $32,808. This 
includes 77 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $6,088 per 
year, and total non-labor capital costs of $26,720 per year. This 
estimate includes initial and annual performance tests, conducting and 
documenting semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance 
inspections, developing a monitoring plan, notifications and 
recordkeeping. Monitoring and testing cost were also included in the 
cost estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in 
section V of this preamble. The total burden for the Federal government 
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 
standard) is estimated to be 16 hours per year, at a total labor cost 
of $695 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

[[Page 22391]]

    When malfunctions occur, sources must report them according to the 
applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN. An 
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission 
limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it 
can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. 
The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only 
where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets 
the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (e.g., sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor 
maintenance or careless operation) and where the source took necessary 
actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must meet 
certain reporting requirements. For example, the source must prepare a 
written root cause analysis and submit a written report to the 
Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and 
requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense. The EPA 
considered whether there might be any burden associated with the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion 
of the affirmative defense. Any such burdens are only incurred if there 
has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the 
affirmative defense. Therefore, the EPA estimates that there would be 
no additional costs for sources that choose to take advantage of the 
affirmative defense for malfunctions since it is already required for 
compliance with the rule. However, there may be other malfunctions that 
are not currently regulated under the part 61 NESHAP that might prompt 
a source to take advantage of an affirmative defense.
    To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of 
the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense 
position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative 
adjustments to the ICR that show what the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense 
might entail. The EPA's estimate for the required reports and records, 
including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141, and is based on the 
time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview 
plant employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that 
has caused a violation of an emission limit. The estimate also includes 
time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the 
EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because 
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a 
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative 
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as 
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in 
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number 
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition 
above), and only a subset of violations caused by malfunctions would 
result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense.
    Thus, we expect the number of instances in which source operators 
might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will 
be extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than one such 
occurrence will occur per year for all sources subject to subpart NN 
over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather 
information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate 
as better information becomes available.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket 
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and 
the OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for 
where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after April 15, 2013, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 15, 2013. 
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any 
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. For this source category, which has the general 
NAICS code 327993 (i.e., Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 750 employees 
according to the SBA small business standards definitions.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities in the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing source categories, I certify that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Five of the seven Mineral Wool Production parent companies 
affected in this proposed rule are considered to be small entities per 
the definition provided in this section. There are no small businesses 
in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. We estimate that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on any 
of those companies.
    While there are some costs imposed on affected small businesses as 
a result of this rulemaking, the costs associated with today's action 
are less than the costs associated with the limits proposed on November 
25, 2011. Specifically, the cost to small entities in the Mineral Wool 
Production source category due to the changes in COS, HF, and HCl are 
lower as compared to the limits proposed on November 25, 2011.

[[Page 22392]]

None of the five small mineral wool parent companies are expected to 
have an annualized compliance cost of greater than one percent of its 
revenues. All other affected parent companies are not small businesses 
according to the SBA small business size standard for the affected 
NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, we have determined that the 
impacts for this proposed rule do not constitute a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Although these proposed rules would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
has tried to mitigate the impact that these rules would have on small 
entities. The actions we are proposing to take to mitigate impacts on 
small businesses include less frequent compliance testing for the 
entire mineral wool industry and subcategorizing the Mineral Wool 
Production Source Category in developing the proposed COS, HF and HCl 
emissions limits than originally required in the November 25, 2011, 
proposal. For more information, please refer to the economic impact and 
small business analysis that is in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
The total annualized cost of these rules is estimated to be no more 
than $150,000 (2011$) in any one year. Thus, these rules are not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA, because they contain no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. These rules only 
impact mineral wool and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities, and, 
thus, do not impact small governments uniquely or significantly.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This 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, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rules impose 
requirements on owners and operators of specified major and area 
sources, and not on state or local governments. There are no wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production 
facilities owned or operated by state or local governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed 
rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area and 
major sources, and not tribal governments. There are no wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production facilities owned or 
operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional 
comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is based 
solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA estimates that the requirements 
in this proposed action would cause most wool fiberglass manufacturers 
to modify existing air pollution control devices (e.g., increase the 
horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and operate new control 
devices, resulting in a small increase in the megawatt-hours per year 
of additional electricity being used.
    Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from 
this proposed action, the EPA does not expect any significant price 
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should 
not be affected by this proposed action at all since the action would 
not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any 
impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse 
outcomes that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be 
significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any 
adverse energy effects associated with this proposed action, they would 
be minimal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The 
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the agency 
conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 
NESHAP through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS 
organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
    Under 40 CFR part 63 subpart NN, searches were conducted for EPA 
Methods 5 and 29. The search did not identify any other VCS that were 
potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
    We proposed VCS under the NTTAA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
(NNN) and for Mineral Wool Production (DDD) in November 2011. 
Commenters asked to have the option to use other EPA methods to measure 
their emissions for compliance purposes. These are not VCS and as such 
are not subject to this requirement.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why such standards should be 
used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs

[[Page 22393]]

federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    An analysis of demographic data shows that the average percentage 
of minorities, percentages of the population below the poverty level, 
and the percentages of the population 17 years old and younger, in 
close proximity to the sources, are similar to the national averages, 
with percentage differences of 3, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively, at the 3-
mile radius of concern. These differences in the absolute number of 
percentage points from the national average indicate a 9.4-percent, 
14.4-percent, and 6.6-percent over-representation of minority 
populations, populations below the poverty level, and the percentages 
of the population 17 years old and younger, respectively.
    In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities 
near affected sources, the EPA used census data at the block group 
level to identify demographics of the populations considered to be 
living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to 
current emissions from these sources. In this approach, the EPA 
reviewed the distributions of different socio-demographic groups in the 
locations of the expected emission reductions from this rule. The 
review identified those census block groups with centroids within a 
circular distance of a 0.5, 3, and 5 miles of affected sources, and 
determined the demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g., race, 
income, education, etc.) of these census block groups. The radius of 
three miles (or approximately five kilometers) has been used in other 
demographic analyses focused on areas around potential 
sources.17 18 19 20 There was only one census block group 
with its centroids within 0.5 miles of any source affected by the 
proposed rule. The EPA's demographic analysis has shown that these 
areas, in aggregate, have similar proportions of American Indians, 
African-Americans, Hispanics, and ``Other and Multi-racial'' 
populations to the national average. The analysis also showed that 
these areas, in aggregate, had similar proportions of families with 
incomes below the poverty level as the national average, and similar 
populations of children 17 years of age and younger.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics 
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government 
Printing Office; 1995.
    \18\ Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic 
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography. 
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \19\ Mennis J. Using Geographic Information Systems to Create 
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for 
Environmental Justice Analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 
2002;83(1):281-297.
    \20\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste 
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
    \21\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 
Review of Environmental Justice Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride, 
September 2010, a copy of which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA defines Environmental Justice to include meaningful 
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote 
meaningful involvement, the EPA has developed a communication and 
outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to 
this proposed rule, are aware of its content, and have an opportunity 
to comment during the comment period. During the comment period, the 
EPA will publicize the rulemaking via environmental justice 
newsletters, Tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs and 
the Internet, including the EPA Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway Web 
site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). The EPA will also 
conduct targeted outreach to environmental justice communities, as 
appropriate. Outreach activities may include providing general 
rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community) 
for environmental justice community groups, and conducting conference 
calls with interested communities. In addition, State and Federal 
permitting requirements will provide State and local governments, and 
members of affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on 
the permit conditions associated with permitting the sources affected 
by the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing.

    Dated: March 15, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(10) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (10) Method 8270D (SW-846-8270D), Semivolatile Organic Compounds by 
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 4, February 
2007, in EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  63.1385, 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH 
of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NN to read as follows:
Subpart NN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources
Sec.
63.880 Applicability.
63.881 Definitions.
63.882 Emission standards.
63.883 Monitoring requirements.
63.884 Performance test requirements.
63.885 Test methods and procedures.
63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.887 Compliance dates.
63.888 Startups and shutdowns.
63.889-63.899 [Reserved]

[[Page 22394]]

Table 1. Subpart NN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 
CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN

Subpart NN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources

Sec.  63.880  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each 
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source or is 
located at a facility that is an area source.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of 
particulate matter (PM) and chromium compounds, as measured according 
to the methods and procedures in this subpart, emitted from each new 
and existing gas-fired glass-melting furnace located at a wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source.
    (c) The provisions of this part 63, subpart A that apply and those 
that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 of this 
subpart.
    (d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that are not subject to NNN 
are subject to this subpart
    (e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces using electricity as a 
supplemental energy source are subject to this subpart

Sec.  63.881  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
    Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not 
limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other 
effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter (PM) 
emissions.
    Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a 
refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high 
temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned 
to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure 
and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers, 
exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical 
boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and 
appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming 
processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not 
considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top 
electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in Part 63, subpart NNN are 
not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
    Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by 
a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of 
wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time 
period.
    Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the 
production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where 
molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may 
include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set 
and a cooling section where the mat is cooled.
    Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers 
made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the 
manufacturing line is located.
    Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility 
manufacturing wool fiberglass.

Sec.  63.882  Emission standards.

    (a) Emission limits. (1) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. On and 
after the date the initial performance test is completed or required to 
be completed under Sec.  63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
    (i) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-
melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into 
the atmosphere in excess of:
    (A) 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton of glass 
pulled; and
    (B) 0.00006 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per ton of glass pulled 
(60 lb per million tons glass pulled).
    (b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the 
performance test required to be conducted by Sec. Sec.  63.7 and 
63.1384 is completed, you must operate all affected control equipment 
and processes according to the following requirements.
    (1)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour of an 
alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete corrective actions 
in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent 
with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, 
subpart D when the bag leak detection system alarm is sounded for more 
than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (2)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 
3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic precipitator (ESP) 
parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance 
test as specified in Sec.  63.884 and complete corrective actions in a 
timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance 
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 subpart D when the 
monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the 
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 5 percent 
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (iii) You must operate the ESP such that the monitored ESP 
parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the 
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent 
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (3)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 
3-hour block average value for the monitored parameter(s) for a gas-
fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on controls, is outside 
the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in 
Sec.  63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner 
according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance 
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 subpart D when the 
monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established during the 
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than five 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (iii) You must operate a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which 
uses no add-on technology, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not 
outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as 
specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total 
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (4)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the 
average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors, or 
daily glass pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not so equipped, 
exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the performance 
test as specified in Sec.  63.884, by greater than 20 percent and

[[Page 22395]]

complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the 
procedures in the operations, maintenance and monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance 
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the 
glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average glass 
pull rate established during the performance test as specified in Sec.  
63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period.
    (iii) You must operate each gas-fired glass-melting furnace such 
that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent, the 
average glass pull rate established during the performance test as 
specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total 
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (5)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the 
average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or pressure drop (for a venturi 
scrubber) for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established 
during the performance tests as specified in Sec.  63.884 for each wet 
scrubbing control device and complete corrective actions in a timely 
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance 
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when any 
scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the 
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than five 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 
period.
    (iii) You must operate each scrubber such that each monitored 
parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the 
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent 
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

Sec.  63.883  Monitoring requirements.

    You must meet all applicable monitoring requirements contained in 
40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

Sec.  63.884  Performance test requirements.

    (a) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart you must 
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.882. Compliance is demonstrated 
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each 
of the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.882. You must conduct the 
performance test according to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A and in this section.
    (b) You must meet all applicable performance test requirements 
contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

Sec.  63.885  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) You must use the following methods to determine compliance with 
the applicable emission limits:
    (1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the selection of the 
sampling port location and number of sampling ports;
    (2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for O2 
and CO2 for diluent measurements needed to correct the 
concentration measurements to a standard basis;
    (4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for moisture content of 
the stack gas;
    (5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of 
PM. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of 2 hours and a 
minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). The probe 
and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas 
temperature no greater than 120 14 [deg]C (248 25 [deg]F);
    (6) Method 29 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration of 
chromium compounds. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of 2 
hours and a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm.
    (7) An alternative method, subject to approval by the 
Administrator.
    (b) Each performance test shall consist of three runs. You must use 
the average of the three runs in the applicable equation for 
determining compliance.

Sec.  63.886  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Requirements. You must meet all applicable notification, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart NNN.
    (b) Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission Limit During 
Malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set 
forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim 
for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused 
by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 
assessed if you fail to meet the burden of proving all of the 
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall 
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative 
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet 
the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and 
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation or maintenance.
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 
violation occurred and
    (iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment 
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose 
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event 
at issue. The analysis must also specify, using best monitoring methods 
and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the 
result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense you must submit a written report to the Administrator, with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that meets the requirements set 
forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. This affirmative defense 
report shall be included in the

[[Page 22396]]

first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report 
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the 
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging 
period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report 
is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, 
the affirmative defense report may be included in the second 
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the 
initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.

Sec.  63.887  Compliance dates.

    (a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart by no later than:
    (1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the 
compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing plant or source 
subject to the provisions in this subpart would be 1 year after 
promulgation.
    (2) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the 
compliance date for new and reconstructed plants or sources is upon 
startup of a new gas-fired glass-melting furnace or at promulgation of 
the final rule.
    (3) The compliance date for the provisions related to malfunctions 
and affirmative defense provisions of Sec.  63.886 and the electronic 
reporting provisions of Sec.  63.886 is at promulgation of the final 
rule.
    (b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing 
source subject to this subpart may request from the Administrator an 
extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one 
additional year if such additional period is necessary for the 
installation of controls. You must submit a request for an extension 
according to the procedures in Sec.  63.6(i)(3) of this part.

Sec.  63.888  Startups and shutdowns.

    (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
    (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or 
utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during 
times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment, if 
the shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable 
to such items of equipment. This paragraph does not apply if you must 
shut down the equipment to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous 
startup or shutdown of the affected source or a portion thereof.
    (c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting 
furnace has any raw materials added. Startup ends when molten glass 
begins to flow from the glass-melting furnace.
    (d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting 
furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down 
process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the 
contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the 
glass-melting furnace.
    (e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate 
compliance with the gas-fired glass-melting furnace emission limits in 
Sec.  63.882 during periods of startups and shutdowns, demonstrate 
compliance in accordance with this paragraph (e) of this section.
    (f) During periods of startup and shutdown, records establishing 
that your air pollution control devices were operated at the parameters 
established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance 
with the standard may be used to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission limits.

Sec. Sec.  63.889-63.899  [Reserved]

  Table 1--Subpart NN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     General provisions  citation            Requirement         Applies to subpart NN         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  Applicability..........  Yes....................  .......................
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.881.
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................  .......................
63.4.................................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................  .......................
63.5.................................  Construction/            Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
63.5(a), (b), (c)....................  Existing, New,           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reconstructed Sources
                                        Requirements.
63.5(d)..............................  Application for          No.....................  [Reserved].
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.882 for
                                                                                          general duty
                                                                                          requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).......................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(e)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown, and   No.....................  .......................
                                        Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)...........................  Compliance with          No.....................  .......................
                                        Emission Standards.
63.6(g)..............................  Alternative Standard...  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(h)..............................  Compliance with Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart DDD--no COMS,
                                        VE Standards.                                     VE or opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.6(i)..............................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(j)..............................  Exemption from           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Sec.   63.884 has
                                        Requirements                                      specific requirements.
                                        Applicability
                                        Notification Quality
                                        Assurance/Test Plan
                                        Testing Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)...........................  Conduct of Tests.......  No.....................  .......................
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4).............  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.7(f), (g), (h)....................  Alternative Test Method  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Data Analysis Waiver
                                        of Tests.

[[Page 22397]]

 
63.8(a)-(b)..........................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability Conduct
                                        of Monitoring.
63.8(c)(1)(i)........................  CMS Operation/           No.....................  See Sec.   63.882(b)
                                        Maintenance.                                      for general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii).......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)......................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(d)(3)...........................  Quality Control........  Yes, except for the      .......................
                                                                 last sentence.
63.8(e)-(g)..........................  CMS Performance          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Evaluation.
63.9(a)..............................  Notification             Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.9(b)..............................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Extension.
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification  Yes....................  .......................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/      No.....................  Opacity/VE tests not
                                        Opacity Test.                                     required.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-(3).......................  Notification of          .......................  .......................
                                        Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous       Yes....................  .......................
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability.
63.10(b)(1)..........................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i).......................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)......................  .......................  No.....................  See 63.886 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          occurrence and
                                                                                          duration of
                                                                                          malfunctions and
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          actions taken during
                                                                                          malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)............  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)..........  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(b)(3)..........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)......................  Additional CMS           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(10)-(11)....................  .......................  No.....................  See 63.886 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(15).........................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)......................  General Reporting        Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Performance Test
                                        Results Opacity or VE
                                        Observations.
63.10(d)(5)..........................  Progress Reports/        No.....................  See 63.886(c)(2) for
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and                            reporting of
                                        Malfunction Reports.                              malfunctions.
63.10(e)-(f).........................  Additional CMS Reports   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Excess Emission/CMS
                                        Performance Reports
                                        COMS Data Reports
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting Waiver.
63.11................................  Control Device           No.....................  Flares will not be used
                                        Requirements                                      to comply with the
                                        Applicability Flares.                             emissions limits.
63.12................................  State Authority and      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses..............  Yes....................  .......................
63.14................................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reference.
63.15................................  Information              Yes....................  .......................
                                        Availability/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart DDD--[AMENDED]

0
4. Section 63.1178 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 
paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1178  For cupolas, what standards must I meet?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Limit emissions of carbonyl sulfide (COS) from each existing, 
new, or reconstructed closed-top cupola to the following:
    (i) 3.4 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing closed-top 
cupolas.
    (ii) 0.025 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or reconstructed 
closed-top cupolas.

[[Page 22398]]

    (3) Limit emissions of COS from each existing, new, or 
reconstructed open-top cupola to the following:
    (i) 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing open-top 
cupolas.
    (ii) 4.3 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or reconstructed 
open-top cupolas.
    (4) Limit emissions of hydrogen fluoride (HF) from each existing, 
new, or reconstructed cupola to the following:
    (i) 0.16 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas using slag as 
a raw material.
    (ii) 0.13 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas that do not 
use slag as a raw material.
    (5) Limit emissions of hydrogen Chloride (HCl) from each existing, 
new, or reconstructed cupola to the following:
    (i) 0.21 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas using slag 
as a raw material.
    (ii) 0.43 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas that do not 
use slag as a raw material.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading, 
paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1179  For combined collection/curing operations, what 
standards must I meet?

    (a) You must control emissions from each existing and new combined 
collection/curing operations by limiting emissions of formaldehyde, 
phenol, and methanol to the following:
    (1) For combined drum collection/curing operations:
    (i) 0.18 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
    (ii) 1.3 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
    (iii) 0.48 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
    (2) For combined horizontal collection/curing operations:
    (i) 0.054 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
    (ii) 0.15 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
    (iii) 0.022 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
    (3) For combined vertical collection/curing operations:
    (i) 2.7 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
    (ii) 0.74 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
    (iii) 1.0 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
    (b) You must meet the following operating limits for each combined 
collection/curing operations subcategory:
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1180 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1180  When must I meet these standards?

* * * * *
    (d) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of 
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will 
be based on information available to the Administrator which may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the source.
    (e) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during 
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set 
forth in Sec.  63.1197, you may assert an affirmative defense to a 
claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that are 
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties 
may be assessed if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the 
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall 
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative 
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet 
the reporting requirements in Sec.  63.1191 of this subpart, and must 
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment 
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; 
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose 
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event 
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were 
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense must submit a written report to the Administrator with all 
necessary supporting documentation that explains how it has met the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. This 
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic 
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise 
required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant 
standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If 
such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less 
than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the 
affirmative defense report may be included in the second compliance, 
deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial 
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1196 is amended by adding definitions, in alphabetical 
order, for ``Closed-top cupola,'' ``Combined collection/curing 
operations,'' and ``Open-top cupola'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1196  What definitions should I be aware of?

* * * * *
    Closed-top cupola means a cupola that operates as a closed 
(process) system and has a restricted air flow rate.

[[Page 22399]]

    Combined collection/curing operations means the combination of 
fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make bonded 
products.
* * * * *
    Open-top cupola means a cupola that is open to the outside air and 
operates with an air flow rate that is unrestricted and at low 
pressure.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.1197 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1197  Startups and shutdowns.

    (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
    (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are utilized for 
compliance with this subpart.
    (c) Startup begins when the coke interspersed with layers of rock 
and/or slag and other mineral products are ignited. Startup ends when 
molten mineral wool begins to flow from the cupola.
    (d) Shutdown begins when the cupola has reached the end of the 
melting campaign and is empty. No mineral wool glass continues to flow 
from the cupola during shutdown.
    (e) During periods of startups and shutdowns you may demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limits in Sec.  63.1178 by keeping records 
showing that your emissions were controlled using air pollution control 
devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent 
performance test that showed compliance with the standard.
0
9. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                       DDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                      Requirement         Applies to subpart DDD        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)....................  General Applicability..  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(a)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(12)..................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(b)(1)...........................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Determination.
63.1(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(b)(3)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(c)(1)-(c)(2)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Standard Established.
63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(5)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(d)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)..............................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................  .......................
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................  .......................
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................  .......................
63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.4(b)(1)-(b)(2)....................  Circumvention..........  Yes....................  .......................
63.4(c)..............................  Fragmentation..........  Yes....................  .......................
63.5(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Construction/            Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)...........................  Requirements for         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources..
63.5(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.5(b)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.5(c)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)..............................  Application for          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction or
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................  .......................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(f)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................  .......................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction Based
                                        on State Review.
63.6(a)..............................  Compliance with          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)....................  .......................  .......................  .......................
63.6(b)(6)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(c)(1)-(c)(2)....................  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Sec.   63.1180
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies compliance
                                                                                          dates.
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(d)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................  General Duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180(d)
                                        minimize emissions.                               for general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).......................  Requirement to correct   No.....................  Sec.   63.1187(b)
                                        malfunctions as soon                              specifies additional
                                        as possible.                                      requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(iii)......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(e)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].

[[Page 22400]]

 
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown        No.....................  Startups and shutdowns
                                        Malfunction (SSM) Plan.                           addressed in Sec.
                                                                                          63.1197.
63.6(f)(1)-f(3)......................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  .......................
63.6(g)..............................  Alternative Nonopacity   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Emission Standard.
63.6(h)..............................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  .......................
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)...................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................  Sec.   63.1180 specfies
                                                                                          the dates
63.6(i)(15)..........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)..........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(i)(j)...........................  Exemption from           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Compliance.
63.7(a)..............................  Performance Test         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.7(b)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Test.
63.7(c)..............................  Quality Assurance        Yes....................  .......................
                                        Program.
63.7(d)..............................  Performance Testing      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)...........................  Performance testing....  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180.
63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(f)..............................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................  .......................
                                        test method.
63.7(g)(1)...........................  Data Analysis,           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Recordkeeping, and
                                        Reporting.
63.7(g)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.7(g)(3)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.7(h)..............................  Waiver of Performance    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Test.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability.
63.8(a)(3)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(b)..............................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(c)(1)(i)........................  General duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180(e)
                                        minimize emissions and                            for general duty
                                        CMS operation.                                    requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(iii)......................  Requirement to develop   No.....................  .......................
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.
63.8(d)(3)...........................  Written procedures for   Yes, except for last     .......................
                                        CMS.                     sentence, which refers
                                                                 to SSM plan. SSM plans
                                                                 are not required.
63.8(e)..............................  Performance Evaluation   No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        of Continuous                                     require CMS
                                        Monitoring Systems.                               performance
                                                                                          evaluations.
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)....................  Alternative Monitoring   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Method.
63.8(f)(6)...........................  Alternative to RATA      No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Test.                                             require CEMS.
63.8(g)(1)...........................  Reduction of Monitoring  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Data.
63.8(g)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require COMS or CEMS.
63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(a)..............................  Notification             Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.9(b)(1)-(2).......................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(b)(3)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Extension.
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification  Yes....................  .......................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/      No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Opacity Test.                                     include VE/opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS           No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Notifications.                                    require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluation, COMS, or
                                                                                          CEMS.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)....................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous       Yes....................  .......................
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability.
63.10(b)(1)..........................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Sec.   63.1192 includes
                                        Requirements.                                     additional
                                                                                          requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i).......................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  .......................
                                        occurrence and
                                        duration of startups
                                        and shutdowns.

[[Page 22401]]

 
63.10(b)(2)(ii)......................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  See Sec.   63.1193(c)
                                        malfunctions.                                     for recordkeeping of
                                                                                          (ii) occurrence and
                                                                                          duration and (iii)
                                                                                          actions taken during
                                                                                          malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).....................  Maintenance records....  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)..................  Actions taken to         No.....................  .......................
                                        minimize emissions
                                        during SSM.
63.10(b)(2)(vi)......................  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes....................  .......................
                                        malfunctions.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)...............  Other CMS requirements.  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(1)..........................  Additional CMS           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)...................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)..........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(6)..........................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          specifications.
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8)...................  Additional               Yes....................  .......................
                                        recordkeeping
                                        requirements for CMS--
                                        identifying
                                        exceedances and excess
                                        emissions.
63.10(c)(9)..........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(c)(11).................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1192 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require a CMS quality
                                                                                          control program.
63.10(c)(15).........................  Use of SSM Plan........  No.....................  .......................
63.10(d)(1)..........................  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     in Sec.   63.1193.
63.10(d)(2)..........................  Performance Test         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Results.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Opacity or VE            No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Observations.                                     include VE/opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.10(d)(4)..........................  Progress Reports.......  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(d)(5)..........................  SSM reports............  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1193(f)
                                                                                          for reporting of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2)...................  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require CEMS or CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluations.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess Emissions/CMS     Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  COMS Data Reports......  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
3.10(f)..............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Waiver.
63.11(a).............................  Control Device           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.11(b).............................  Flares.................  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
63.11(c).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice for
                                        Monitoring Equipment
                                        for Leaks.
63.11(d).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice Standard.
63.11(e).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice Requirements.
3.12.................................  State Authority and      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses..............  Yes....................  .......................
63.14................................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reference.
63.15................................  Availability of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality.
63.16................................  Performance Track        Yes....................  .......................
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart NNN--[AMENDED]

0
10. Section 63.1380 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1380  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass 
manufacturing line producing a bonded product.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a 
definition for ``Gas-fired glass-melting furnace.''

Sec.  63.1381  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a 
refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high 
temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned 
to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations,

[[Page 22402]]

superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat 
exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and 
electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and 
instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing 
molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including 
flow channels, is not considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting 
furnace. Cold-top electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in this 
subpart are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1382  Emission standards.

    (a) Emission limits--(1) Glass-melting furnaces. On and after the 
date the initial performance test is completed or required to be 
completed under Sec.  63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier:
    (i) For each existing, new, or reconstructed glass-melting furnace 
you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in 
excess of 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton glass 
pulled;
    (ii) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-
melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into 
the atmosphere in excess of 6.0E-5 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per 
ton glass pulled (0.06 lb per thousand tons glass pulled).
    (2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. On after the date the initial 
performance test is completed or required to be completed under Sec.  
63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
    (i) For each existing rotary spin (RS) manufacturing line you must 
not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess 
of:
    (A) 0.19 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 0.26 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.83 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
    (ii) For each new or reconstructed RS manufacturing line you must 
not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess 
of:
    (A) 0.087 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 0.063 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.61 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
    (3) Flame attenuation manufacturing lines. On and after the date 
the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed 
under Sec.  63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
    (i) For each existing flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing line you 
must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in 
excess of:
    (A) 5.6 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 1.4 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
    (ii) For each new or reconstructed FA manufacturing line you must 
not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess 
of:
    (A) 3.3 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 0.46 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.1384 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  63.1384  Performance test requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be 
conducted within 90 days of the promulgation date of this rule to 
demonstrate compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit 
specified in Sec.  63.1382(a)(1)(i), you must conduct an annual 
performance test for chromium compounds emissions from each glass-
melting furnace (no later than 12 calendar months following the 
previous compliance test).
    (1) You must conduct chromium compounds emissions performance tests 
according to Sec.  63.1385 on an annual basis, except as specified in 
paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this section. Annual performance tests 
must be completed no more than 13 months after the previous performance 
test, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 
section.
    (2) You can conduct performance tests less often for chromium 
compounds if your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 
consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 75 percent 
of the emission limit and if there are no changes in the operation of 
the affected source or air pollution control equipment that could 
increase emissions. In this case, you do not have to conduct a 
performance test for chromium compounds for the next 2 years. You must 
conduct a performance test during the third year and no more than 37 
months after the previous performance test.
    (3) If your gas-fired glass-melting furnace continues to meet the 
emission limit for chromium compounds, you may choose to conduct 
performance tests for the pollutant every third year if your emissions 
are at or below 75 percent of the emission limit and if there are no 
changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution 
control equipment that could increase emissions, but each such 
performance test must be conducted no more than 37 months after the 
previous performance test.
    (4) If a performance test shows chromium compounds emissions 
exceeded 75 percent of the emission limit, you must conduct annual 
performance tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over a 
consecutive 2-year period meet the required level of 75 percent of the 
emission limit.
    (e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol 
emissions limits specified in Sec.  63.1382, you must conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable 
PM, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol emissions limits in Sec.  63.1382 
of this subpart at least once every 5 years.
0
14. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) 
and adding paragraphs (a)(11) through (15) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1385  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of 
total PM. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of 2 hours and a 
minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). The probe 
and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas 
temperature no greater than 120 14[deg]C (248 25 [deg]F);
    (6) Method 318 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration 
of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Each test run must consist of a 
minimum of 10 spectra;
* * * * *
    (11) Method 316 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the concentration 
of formaldehyde. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 2 hours and 
2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of sample volume;
    (12) Method SW-846 0010 and Method SW-846 8760D (http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/) for the concentration of 
phenol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 3 hours;
    (13) Method 8270D for the concentration of phenol. Each test run 
must consist of a minimum of 3 hours;
    (14) Method 308 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the concentration 
of

[[Page 22403]]

methanol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 2 hours;
    (15) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration 
of chromium compounds. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 3 
hours and 3 dscm of sample volume;
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Records and reports for a failure to meet a standard. (1) In 
the event that an affected unit fails to meet a standard, record the 
number of failures since the prior notification of compliance status. 
For each failure record the date, time and duration of each failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet a standard record and retain a list of 
the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source 
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1382, including corrective actions to restore process and air 
pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual 
manner of operation.
    (4) If an affected unit fails to meet a standard, report such 
events in the notification of compliance status required by Sec.  
63.1386(a)(7). Report the number of failures to meet a standard since 
the prior notification. For each instance, report the date, time and 
duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a 
list of the affected units or equipment, an estimate of the volume of 
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard and a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.1388 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1388  Startups and shutdowns.

    (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
    (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or 
utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during 
times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed 
to such items of equipment.
    (c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace 
has any raw materials added and reaches 50 percent of its typical 
operating temperature. Startup ends when molten glass begins to flow 
from the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace.
    (d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting 
furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down 
process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the 
contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the 
glass-melting furnace.
    (e) During periods of startups and shutdowns you may demonstrate 
compliance with the emission limits in Sec.  63.1382 by keeping records 
showing that your furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution 
control devices operated at the parameters established by the most 
recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.

0
17. Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63 revised to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                       NNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                      Requirement         Applies to subpart NNN        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)....................  General Applicability..  Yes....................
63.1(a)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(12)..................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(b)(1)...........................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................
                                        Determination.
63.1(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(b)(3)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(c)(1)-(c)(2)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(5)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(d)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)..............................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.4(b)(1)-(b)(2)....................  Circumvention..........  Yes....................
63.4(c)..............................  Fragmentation..........  Yes....................
63.5(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)...........................  Requirements for         Yes....................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources.
63.5(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4)....................  .......................  Yes....................
63.5(b)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.5(c)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)..............................  Application for          Yes....................
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction or
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.

[[Page 22404]]

 
63.5(f)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction Based
                                        on State Review.
63.6(a)..............................  Compliance with          Yes....................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)....................  .......................  .......................  .......................
63.6(b)(6)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.6(c)(1)-(c)(2)....................  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Sec.   63.1387
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies compliance
                                                                                          dates.
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.6(d)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................  General Duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.11382(b)
                                        minimize emissions.                               for general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).......................  Requirement to correct   No.....................  Sec.   63.1382(b)
                                        malfunctions as soon                              specifies additional
                                        as possible.                                      requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(iii)......................  .......................  Yes....................
63.6(e)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown        No.....................  Startups and shutdowns
                                        Malfunction (SSM) Plan.                           addressed in Sec.
                                                                                          63.1388.
63.6(f)(1)-f(3)......................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................
63.6(g)..............................  Alternative Nonopacity   Yes....................
                                        Emission Standard.
63.6(h)..............................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)...................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................  Sec.   63.1387 specfies
                                                                                          the dates
63.6(i)(15)..........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)..........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.6(i)(j)...........................  Exemption from           Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
63.7(a)..............................  Performance Test         Yes....................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.7(b)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Performance Test.
63.7(c)..............................  Quality Assurance        Yes....................
                                        Program.
63.7(d)..............................  Performance Testing      Yes....................
                                        Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)...........................  Performance testing....  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1382(b).
63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)....................  .......................  Yes....................
63.6(f)..............................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................
                                        test method.
63.7(g)(1)...........................  Data Analysis,           Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping, and
                                        Reporting.
63.7(g)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.7(g)(3)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.7(h)..............................  Waiver of Performance    Yes....................
                                        Test.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................
                                        Applicability.
63.8(a)(3)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.8(b)..............................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................
63.8(c)(1)(i)........................  General duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1382(c)
                                        minimize emissions and                            for general duty
                                        CMS operation.                                    requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(iii)......................  Requirement to develop   No.....................
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.
63.8(d)(3)...........................  Written procedures for   Yes, except for last
                                        CMS.                     sentence, which refers
                                                                 to SSM plan. SSM plans
                                                                 are not required.
63.8(e)..............................  Performance Evaluation   No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                        of Continuous                                     require CMS
                                        Monitoring Systems.                               performance
                                                                                          evaluations.
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)....................  Alternative Monitoring   Yes....................
                                        Method.
63.8(f)(6)...........................  Alternative to RATA      No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                        Test.                                             require CEMS.
63.8(g)(1)...........................  Reduction of Monitoring  Yes....................
                                        Data.
63.8(g)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                                                                          require COMS or CEMS.
63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)....................  .......................  Yes....................
63.9(a)..............................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.9(b)(1)-(2).......................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................
63.9(b)(3)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5)....................  .......................  Yes....................
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance   Yes....................
                                        Extension.

[[Page 22405]]

 
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification  Yes....................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Performance Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/      No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                        Opacity Test.                                     include VE/opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS           No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                        Notifications.                                    require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluation, COMS, or
                                                                                          CEMS.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)....................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)....................  .......................  Yes....................
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes....................
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes....................
                                        Applicability.
63.10(b)(1)..........................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Sec.   63.1386 includes
                                        Requirements.                                     additional
                                                                                          requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i).......................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................
                                        occurrence and
                                        duration of startups
                                        and shutdowns.
63.10(b)(2)(ii)......................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  See Sec.   63.1386
                                        malfunctions.                                     (c)(1) through (3) for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          occurrence and
                                                                                          duration and actions
                                                                                          taken during
                                                                                          malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).....................  Maintenance records....  Yes....................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)..................  Actions taken to         No.....................
                                        minimize emissions
                                        during SSM.
63.10(b)(2)(vi)......................  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes....................
                                        malfunctions.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)...............  Other CMS requirements.  Yes....................
63.10(c)(1)..........................  Additional CMS           Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)...................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)..........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.10(c)(6)..........................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                                                                          require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          specifications.
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8)...................  Additional               Yes....................
                                        recordkeeping
                                        requirements for CMS--
                                        identifying
                                        exceedances and excess
                                        emissions.
63.10(c)(9)..........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(c)(11).................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1386 for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                                                                          require a CMS quality
                                                                                          control program.
63.10(c)(15).........................  Use of SSM Plan........  No.....................
63.10(d)(1)..........................  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     in Sec.   63.1193.
63.10(d)(2)..........................  Performance Test         Yes....................
                                        Results.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Opacity or VE            No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                        Observations.                                     include VE/opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.10(d)(4)..........................  Progress Reports.......  Yes....................
63.10(d)(5)..........................  SSM reports............  No.....................  See Sec.
                                                                                          63.1386(c)(iii) for
                                                                                          reporting of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2)...................  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                                                                          require CEMS or CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluations.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess Emissions/CMS     Yes....................
                                        Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  COMS Data Reports......  No.....................  Subpart NNN does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
3.10(f)..............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................
                                        Waiver.
63.11(a).............................  Control Device           Yes....................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.11(b).............................  Flares.................  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
63.11(c).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................
                                        Practice for
                                        Monitoring Equipment
                                        for Leaks.
63.11(d).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................
                                        Practice Standard.
63.11(e).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................
                                        Practice Requirements.

[[Page 22406]]

 
3.12.................................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses..............  Yes....................
63.14................................  Incorporation by         Yes....................
                                        Reference.
63.15................................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality.
63.16................................  Performance Track        Yes....................
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-07257 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P