National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review and Revision of Flame Attenuation Lines Standards, 60873-60886 [2017-27797]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60873-60886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27797]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9972-44-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT13


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review and 
Revision of Flame Attenuation Lines Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action completes the final residual risk and technology 
reviews (RTR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted 
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category regulated under 
the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). 
In this action, the EPA is readopting the existing emission limits for 
formaldehyde, establishing emission limits for methanol, and a work 
practice standard for phenol emissions from bonded rotary spin (RS) 
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In addition, the EPA 
is revising the emission standards promulgated on July 29, 2015, for 
flame attenuation (FA) lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities by creating three subcategories of FA lines and establishing 
emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol emissions, and either 
emission limits or work practice standards for phenol emissions for 
each subcategory of FA lines.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC 
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Mr. Brian Storey, 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 number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability 
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, 
DC 20460; telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email address: 
ayres.sara @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

BDL below the detection limit
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CD-ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory
CDX Central Data Exchange
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FA flame attenuation
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
ICR information collection request
lbs/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PF phenol-formaldehyde
ppmv parts per million by volume

[[Page 60874]]

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RS rotary spin
RTR Risk and Technology Review
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit

    Background information. On August 29, 2017, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP based on our 
technology review of the source category's bonded RS lines. In 
addition, the proposal included certain revisions to the July 29, 2015, 
emission standards for the bonded FA lines. In this action, we are 
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of 
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed 
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other 
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those 
comments is available in the document titled, National Emissions 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN)--Technology Review, Final 
Amendments: Response to Public Comments on August 29, 2017 Proposal, 
which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042). A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language 
that incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the 
docket.
    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 and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and 
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing source category in our August 29, 2017, notice?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments for formaldehyde emissions 
from RS lines based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 
112(h) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 
category?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
    A. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
Source Category
    B. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the 
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
    C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(h) for the Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
    D. Amendments for FA Lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
Source Category
    E. Other Amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Table 1 includes the categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action.

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

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

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wool-fiberglass-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by February 26, 2018. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised

[[Page 60875]]

with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 
(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. 
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the 
rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the 
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a 
demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the 
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy 
to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and 
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. 
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly 
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards 
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP 
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air 
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT 
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, 
including, but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from 
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination 
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review, 
the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural 
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 
2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC 
Cir. 2013). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk 
to public health remaining after application of the technology-based 
standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required 
within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, 
if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to 
revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\1\ 
Additionally, CAA section 112(h) allows the agency to adopt a work 
practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only if it 
is ``not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or 
enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air 
pollutant.'' This phrase is defined as applying where ``the 
Administrator determines that the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations.'' CAA section 112(h)(1) and 
(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 
112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (``If 
EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide 
an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to readopt 
those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is finalizing the technology review for RS 
lines in accordance with section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In addition, the 
EPA is amending certain emission standards promulgated on July 29, 
2015, for FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

B. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how 
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on 
June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 
63, subpart NNN. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category 
consists of facilities that produce wool fiberglass from sand, 
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, or any other 
materials. This source category currently comprises three wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating bonded RS lines, and two 
facilities operating bonded FA lines. The EPA is not currently aware of 
any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded RS or FA lines.
    On July 29, 2015, we published the final rule amendments to the 
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP resulting from our completion of 
certain aspects of the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk review and 
the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for that NESHAP RTR. 80 FR 
45280. Specifically, the July 29, 2015, final rule:
     Established a chromium emission limit for gas-fired, 
glass-melting furnaces under CAA section 112(f)(2);
     Revised the particulate matter emission limit for gas-
fired, glass-

[[Page 60876]]

melting furnaces at major sources under CAA section 112(d)(6);
     Established work practice standards for hydrogen chloride 
and hydrogen fluoride emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h);
     Eliminated the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate and 
established revised limits for formaldehyde and first-time limits for 
methanol and phenol emitted from FA lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 
and (d)(3);
     Eliminated FA line subcategories;
     Removed the exemption for startup and shutdown periods and 
established work practice standards that apply during startup and 
shutdown periods; and
     Established chromium emission limits for both new and 
existing gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at area sources in the Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(5).
    In the July 2015 rule, we did not finalize proposed emission limits 
for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from forming, cooling, 
and collection processes on bonded RS lines under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3). We explained that this decision was based on 
comments we received on our various proposals indicating that the 
proposed limits likely relied on incorrect data. We explained that we 
had issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) under CAA section 
114 for purposes of obtaining the requisite data. 80 FR 45293.

C. What changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
source category in our August 29, 2017, notice?

    On August 29, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart NNN, that took into consideration the new data 
received in response to the ICR. We also explained that since our July 
29, 2015, final rule, we had received new information and data from a 
facility that operates FA lines that cast doubts on information and 
data that the agency relied on in promulgating the July 2015 final rule 
emission limits for FA lines. In the August 29, 2017, Federal Register, 
we proposed the following:
     Readopting the formaldehyde emission limits for bonded RS 
lines that were in the original 1999 NESHAP under CAA section 
112(d)(6);
     Establishing new emission limits for methanol from bonded 
RS lines under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3);
     Establishing work practice standards for phenol from 
bonded RS lines under CAA section 112(h);
     Amending the incinerator operating limits to include 
cooling emissions from both RS and FA limits under CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3);
     Establishing new subcategories of FA lines under CAA 
section 112(d)(1), defined as: (1) Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe 
Products; (2) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC); and 
(3) Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM);
     Establishing new emission limits for formaldehyde, 
methanol, and phenol from most of the newly proposed FA line 
subcategories under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3); and
     Setting work practice standards for phenol from one newly 
proposed FA line subcategory under CAA section 112(h).

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations, as proposed, 
pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) review for the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing source category and amends the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also 
finalizes, with minor revisions to our proposals, other changes to the 
NESHAP, including establishing first-time limits for methanol emissions 
from forming, cooling, and collection processes on new and existing 
bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and establishing work practices standards 
for phenol emissions from forming, cooling, and collection processes on 
new and existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities under CAA section 112(h).
    Additionally, consistent with our proposal, this action finalizes 
our decision to create three subcategories of FA lines at wool 
fiberglass manufactuirng facilities based on the type of product that 
is manufactured. This action also finalizes, as proposed, emission 
limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions under CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3) for two of these subcategories, and finalizes 
emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol under CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3), and work practices standards for phenol emissions 
under CAA section 112(h), for the third subcategory.

A. What are the final rule amendments for formaldehyde emissions from 
RS lines based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing source category?

    We are readopting the current emissions standards for formaldehyde 
from forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and 
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6) as the result of our technology 
review.

B. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
source category?

    Under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), we are establishing 
emission limits for methanol from forming, cooling, and collection 
processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h) 
for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    We are establishing work practice standards for phenol emissions 
from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes on 
existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h).

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    Other changes to the NESHAP include:
     Finalizing the proposed subcategories for FA lines and 
their associated emissions standards for existing, new, and 
reconstructed bonded FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities;
     Adding an annual operating requirement for designating the 
appropriate subcategory for FA lines;
     Clarifying that the Aerospace subcategory includes pipe 
products;
     Establishing the compliance period for both RS and FA 
lines; and
     Revising the recordkeeping requirement for free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binders.

E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on December 26, 2017. The compliance date for 
existing RS and FA manufacturing lines is December 26, 2020. New 
sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the 
effective date of the standard,

[[Page 60877]]

December 26, 2017, or upon startup, whichever is later.
    CAA section 112(i)(3) requires that existing sources must comply as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3 years after 
promulgation of standards under CAA section 112(d). (``Section 
112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to 
any emissions standard . . . promulgated under CAA [section 112].'' 
Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (DC Cir. 2013)). 
Additionally, we may not reset compliance deadlines for revisions that 
are unaccompanied by changes to a MACT standard. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 
1364, 1374 (DC Cir. 2007) (EPA may not revise compliance deadlines 
``for compliance with Section 112 standards anytime it adjusts 
reporting terms.''). This final action reflects our conclusion that 
sources will need the 3-year period to comply with the various final 
rule requirements, which are not just reporting requirements. For 
instance, with regard to FA lines, subcategories have been newly 
created, and numerical emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol 
emissions are being promulgated. Thus, owners or operators of affected 
sources will need to conduct performance tests in order to demonstrate 
initial compliance with these final standards. Additionally, as 
explained at proposal, the work practice standards for phenol emisisons 
from both RS and FA lines call for vendor specifications, which will 
likely require vendor bids and selections, and the likely institution 
of new practices to address the final recordkeeping requirements.

F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    As we proposed, the EPA is taking steps to increase the ease and 
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the 
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners or operators of wool 
fiberglass manufacturing facilities to submit electronic copies of 
certain required performance test reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic 
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an 
electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting 
Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report package which 
will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
(CDX). A description of the ERT and instructions for using ERT can be 
found at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/. CEDRI can be 
accessed through the CDX website (https://www.epa.gov/cdx). Once 
submitted, a performance test report will be available to the public 
through the EPA WebFIRE database (https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. With electronic 
reporting, industry will save time in the performance test submittal 
process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by reducing 
recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted 
to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in hard copy.
    State, local, and tribal air agencies may benefit from more 
streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will 
become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data 
publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more 
thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using 
direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided 
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development, and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, and tribal air agencies, 
and the EPA significant time, money, and effort.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses are contained in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket for this action.

A. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed 
readopting the current NESHAP emission limits for formaldehyde from 
forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and 
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the technology review change for the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing source category?
    We are not changing our technology review findings from the August 
29, 2017, proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    One commenter disagreed with our proposal to readopt the current 
formaldehyde emission limits for existing and new sources. The 
commenter stated that the EPA's refusal to increase protections against 
formaldehyde emissions from RS lines is unlawful and irrational and is 
not consistent with 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), which is intended to drive 
pollution reductions. The commenter said that the EPA's proposal to 
retain the current NESHAP emission limits for formaldehyde from RS 
lines, even though the EPA identified developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies under the technology review, does 
not meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) which requires the 
EPA to ``account'' for such developments consistent with the CAA. The 
commenter asserted that failing to strengthen the emission limits will 
allow sources to emit at higher levels without consequence, and will 
remove a strong incentive for the industry to complete the transition 
to non-phenol formaldehyde (PF) binders.
    We disagree with the commenter. As explained in the August 29, 
2017, action (82 FR 40975), we considered mandating the use of non-PF 
binders for lines currently using PF binders, and/or mandating the use 
of non-PF binders for all bonded lines as part of the required CAA 
section 112(d)(6) technology review. We did not propose this option, 
however, and, instead, we proposed to readopt the current limits 
because the source category has already achieved approximately 95-
percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions due to the

[[Page 60878]]

replacement of the PF binders with non-PF binders. We explained that 
this industry trend would likely continue given industry indications 
that non-PF binders are less expensive than PF binders and, as also 
explained at proposal, that cost considerations will move the industry 
in the direction of complete elimination of PF binders in the absence 
of regulation. However, as also noted at proposal, the remaining 
sources that continue to operate RS lines using PF binders manufacture 
products for customers with specifications that preclude the use of any 
currently available non-PF binders and, therefore, if PF binders were 
banned, these facilities would likely no longer be able to produce 
these products. Furthermore, we noted that mandating non-PF binders 
would likely be viewed as penalizing sources that continued to utilize 
PF binders. Therefore, we continue to conclude that it would be 
inappropriate to ban PF binders at this time. We also explained that 
our review of the 2015 ICR indicated that all bonded RS lines are 
equipped with air pollution control devices for formaldehyde emissions 
as compared to the time of promulgation of the 1999 MACT standards. 
Specifically, we found that formaldehyde emissions were significantly 
below the 1999 MACT and we attributed these reductions to both control 
technologies in use and the phase out of PF binders. We expressed our 
belief that sources would maintain these control technologies and, 
thus, that the lower emissions remain somewhat assured, even without 
our lowering of the existing MACT standards. We continue to believe 
that sources will maintain control technologies that address 
formaldehyde emissions from the various processes on RS lines post 
promulgation of standards that they are already meeting, partly because 
most (or potentially all) of these sources would likely not be able to 
comply with the current formaldehyde limits or the new methanol limits 
without these controls. We also note that because we were confident of 
the continued use of existing control technologies that achieve 
formaldehyde emissions reductions that are well below the existing 
MACT, we also did not propose requiring initial compliance 
demonstration, but rather proposed to allow sources to use test reports 
submitted in response to the 2015 ICR as a means of demonstrating 
initial compliance with the proposed emission limits, when finalized 
(82 FR 40976). This final rule contains this requirement, as proposed. 
Additionally, these existing MACT limits are reflected in operating 
permits for these sources and, thus, remain enforceable until otherwise 
revised.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    As noted in the proposal preamble (82 FR 40974), this source 
category has already achieved approximately 95-percent reduction in 
formaldehyde emissions due to the replacement of PF binders with non-PF 
binders. We conclude that the industry will continue this trend without 
the need for tighter regulation due to cost considerations (i.e., non-
PF binders are less expensive than PF binders). Additionally, as 
explained above, facilities are currently using PF binders because of 
customers' specifications for certain products and, thus, would be 
unable to manufacture such products if we mandate the use of non-PF 
binders. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposal to readopt the 
current NESHAP formaldehyde emission limits for existing, new, and 
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities.

B. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for 
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed first-
time standards for methanol emitted from forming, cooling, and 
collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS 
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. We established the 
MACT floor for methanol emissions based on application of the upper 
prediction limit (UPL) method to the best-performing five sources in 
the test data collected under Part 2 of the 2015 ICR. We considered 
beyond-the-floor options for methanol for all combined collection and 
curing operation designs as required by CAA section 112(d)(2); however, 
we did not propose any limits based on the beyond-the-floor analyses 
because of the potential adverse impacts of additional controls, 
including the cost of control devices, non-air environmental impacts, 
and energy implications associated with use of these additional 
controls.
2. How did our findings pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 
review change for the Wool Fberglass Manufacturing source category?
    In this final action, we are revising the methanol emission limits 
for new and existing bonded RS lines by reflecting just two significant 
figures, based on comments received on the August 29, 2017, proposal. 
This is consistent with current bonded RS line emission limits.
3. What key comments did we receive on our findings pursuant to CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
    One commenter stated that the EPA's proposal illegally and 
arbitrarily relied on the UPL, instead of following the CAA's 
requirement to set an emission limitation that is not less stringent 
than the ``average emission limitation achieved'' by the relevant best-
performing sources. The commenter also argued that there was ample 
support in the record for proposal and adoption of beyond-the-floor 
limits such as material switching.
    We disagree with the commenter. Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA 
requires the EPA to promulgate standards for major sources of HAP that 
are based on MACT performance. For existing sources, MACT standards 
must be at least as stringent as the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (for 
which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best-
performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 
sources. For new sources, the MACT standards must be at least as 
stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. MACT standards also have to be continuously 
achievable as specified by CAA section 302(k).
    Although CAA section 112(d) includes language such as ``existing 
source,'' ``best performing,'' and ``achieved in practice'' in 
referring to source operations, the CAA language does not address 
whether sources' emission levels should be evaluated over time or be 
based on a single test result. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has long 
recognized the ambiguity in the term ``average emission limitation.'' 
See NACWA v. EPA, 734 F.3d at 1131 (noting that the court has accorded 
Chevron deference to the EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 129 MACT 
floor requirement) and 112 (``the phrase `average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units' could be 
interpreted several different ways, with several

[[Page 60879]]

different variations of what the MACT floor is supposed to 
represent''). The phrase ``average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of units'' does not specify the methodology 
that the EPA should use to determine the emissions levels achieved by 
the best-performing sources. Therefore, the EPA has discretion to 
interpret the phrase ``average emission limitation achieved'' by the 
best performing source or sources. Further, the D.C. Circuit has held 
repeatedly that the EPA may take the variability of best-performing 
sources into account in establishing MACT floors. Sierra Club v. EPA, 
479 F.3d 875, 881-882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). See also, Cement Kiln Recycling 
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 861, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2001); National Lime 
Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46, 443 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 
Consequently, we apply the UPL approach in developing numeric emission 
standards when using short-term test data, rather than calculating a 
straight average of test runs which does not address the performance of 
a source over time. The UPL is a statistical method to compensate for 
limited data and account for variability in emissions in determining 
what emission limitations have been achieved by the best-performing 
sources. The EPA's use of the UPL has been upheld based on explanations 
previously provided in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 632-637 
(D.C. Cir. 2016). ``We believe that the EPA has carried its burden of 
demonstrating that the UPL reflect[s] a reasonable estimate of the 
emissions achieved in practice by the best performing sources.'' Id., 
at 635 (Internal citations omitted).
    With regard to the comment that we should have set beyond-the-floor 
limits in light of evidence of material switching, as explained at 
proposal, there are potential adverse impacts of additional controls 
for methanol, such as control devices costs, non-air quality health 
impacts, and energy implications (82 FR 40976). Additionally, as also 
previously explained, customer specifications preclude the use of 
products with any currently available non-PF binders and, therefore, 
requiring non-PF binders as a beyond-the-floor measure would result in 
these products likely no longer being produced. (``Nothing in section 
7429(a)(2) requires the agency to impose a cost so disproportionate to 
the expected gains.'' Id., at 640).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach pursuant to CAA 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?
    We based the final methanol emission limits for the forming, 
cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed 
RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities on data collected 
under Part 2 of the 2015 ICR. We conclude that, based on the UPL for 
the best-performing five sources, these limits represent the MACT level 
of control for methanol emissions currently being achieved on RS line 
processes by using add-on control devices (e.g., gas scrubbers, thermal 
oxidizers). In response to the proposed rule, we did not receive any 
additional emissions and process data for consideration.

C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(h) for the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(h) for the Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed 
establishing work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) that 
represent MACT for phenol emissions from forming, cooling, and 
collection processes on bonded RS lines. We concluded that it was not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit for these processes 
due to the prevalence of emission test values reported as below the 
detection limit (BDL) of the test method.
2. How did our findings pursuant to CAA section 112(h) change for the 
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
    We did not change our proposal to establish work practice standards 
for phenol emissions under CAA section 112(h) for RS lines. However, 
based on our evaluation of public comments, we concluded that methods 
for determining the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder 
formulations does not exist. We have, therefore, removed the proposed 
requirement for facilities to record the free-formaldehyde and free-
phenol content of binder formulations, and instead revised the proposed 
requirement for facilities to record and maintain records of the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of the resin purchased. In 
addition, facilities are required to record and maintain records of the 
formaldehyde and phenol content of the product binder formulations.
3. What key comments did we receive on our findings pursuant to CAA 
section 112(h), and what are our responses?
    One commenter noted that the proposed rule requires owners or 
operators to record the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of 
binder, but did not specify the method for determining these values. 
The proposed rule did not specify the procedures for determining the 
binder free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content because we were 
unaware of a published method for conducting the measurement. Based on 
discussions with the commenter, the industry does not have methods for 
assessing these parameters in binder formulations. Consequently, we are 
removing the requirement in the final rule to record the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder formulations. We have 
revised the rule to require facilities to record and maintain records 
of the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of the resin 
purchased.
    One commenter said that the EPA failed to meet the required tests 
for setting only work practice standards instead of numerical emission 
limits. The commenter noted that the EPA may promulgate work practice 
standards instead of numerical standards ``only if measuring emission 
levels is technologically or economically impracticable'' (Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883-84 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) and only if doing so 
``is consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f).'' 42 
U.S.C. 7412(h)(1). The commenter stated that the presence of BDL values 
in the test data does not provide an excuse for the EPA to evade the 
requirement to set numeric standards.
    We disagree with the commenter that numerical standards are 
appropriate for phenol emissions from RS lines. Sections 112(h)(1) and 
(h)(2)(B) of the CAA provide the EPA with the discretion to adopt a 
work practice standard, rather than a numeric standard, when ``the 
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources 
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.'' The 
``application of measurement methodologies'' (described in CAA section 
112(h)(2)(B)) means not only conducting a measurement, but also that a 
measurement has some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting 
(i.e., that the measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not the 
case here. Therefore, as proposed, we concluded that it is not feasible 
to establish a numerical standard for phenol emissions from RS lines. 
Moreover, a numerical limit established at some level greater than the 
detection limit (which would be a necessity since any numeric standard 
would have to be measurable) could authorize and allow more emissions 
of these HAP than would otherwise be the case.

[[Page 60880]]

4. What is the rationale for our final approach pursuant to CAA section 
112(h)?
    As explained in the proposal preamble, approximately 60 percent of 
the phenol concentration values were reported as BDL values. Under 
these circumstances, it is not technologically and economically 
feasible to measure reliably phenol emissions from RS lines. This is 
also consistent with our approach in previous rulemakings (e.g., NESHAP 
for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, NESHAP 
for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants) where test results were 
predominantly found to be BDL (e.g., more than 55 percent of the test 
run results). In these instances, the EPA established work practice 
standards for the pollutants in question from the subject sources 
because we concluded that emissions of the pollutants are too low to 
reliably measure and quantify. Similarly, we are finalizing work 
practice standards for phenol emissions from FA lines.

D. Amendments for FA Lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 
Category

1. What amendments did we propose for FA lines in the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing source category?
    In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40976), we proposed three 
subcategories for FA lines under CAA section 112(d)(1) based on recent 
information indicating that there are technical or design differences 
that distinguish FA lines that manufacture different wool fiberglass 
products: (1) Aerospace and Air Filtration; (2) HVAC; and (3) OEM. (See 
also proposed 40 CFR 63.1381.) We also proposed revisions to the 
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines 
promulgated on July 29, 2015 (80 FR 45280), to reflect these new 
subcategories and proposed a 1-year compliance period. In a separate 
action on July 6, 2017 (82 FR 34858), we proposed extending the 
compliance period for the July 29, 2015, final rule requirements for 
existing FA lines to 3 years in order to allow the EPA time to review 
corrected data provided by the industry.
2. How did our findings regarding the FA line proposal change for the 
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
    Consistent with our August 29, 2017, proposal, we revised the 
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol limits for FA lines to incorporate 
updated production data received from the industry. We also revised the 
definition of the Aerospace subcategory to include FA lines that 
manufacture pipe products to reflect comments we received on our 
proposal. Table 2 shows the final emission limits for the FA line 
subcategories.

                            Table 2--Final Emission Limits for FA Line Subcategories
                                                    [lb/ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      New and
                Subcategory                               Pollutant                  Existing      reconstructed
                                                                                      sources         sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe          Formaldehyde.......................              27            18.0
 Products.
                                             Methanol...........................             8.9             4.0
HVAC.......................................  Formaldehyde.......................             2.8             2.4
                                             Methanol...........................             7.3             1.5
                                             Phenol.............................             0.4             0.4
OEM........................................  Formaldehyde.......................             5.0             2.9
                                             Methanol...........................             5.7             1.1
                                             Phenol.............................              31              22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What key comments did we receive regarding the FA line proposal?
    One commenter noted that we did not use the correct production rate 
values in calculating the test run values (expressed in terms of pounds 
of pollutant per ton of glass pulled) that we used in the UPL analysis. 
We acknowledge the error in the industry data, and the emission limits 
for FA lines in the final rule, reflects the updated production values.
    One commenter noted that the Aerospace and Air Filtration Products 
subcategory should include pipe products because the same base resin is 
used in manufacturing these products. We agree with the commenter that 
it is appropriate for pipe products and the Aerospace and Air 
Filtration Products subcategory to meet the same emission limits; 
therefore, we revised the Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN in the 
final rule.
    Another commenter stated that the EPA's proposal to subcategorize 
FA lines so that each individual source is its own subcategory is 
irrational and unlawful and does not meet the statutory test for 
subcategorization specified in CAA section 112(d)(1), which is based on 
the ``classes, types, and sizes'' of sources. The commenter said that 
the EPA failed to provide the necessary determination to subcategorize, 
including a demonstration of: (1) Why these different products make the 
different lines somehow appropriate to divide into subcategories; (2) 
why the different products require the use of different binders, some 
with greater amounts of pollutants; or (3) why the EPA is changing its 
prior proposal not to subcategorize FA lines. The commenter also stated 
that there was no support for the work practice standard for phenol 
emissions from the Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe Products 
subcategory.
    We disagree with the commenter. In the April 15, 2013, proposal (78 
FR 22387), we proposed to eliminate the heavy density and pipe 
subcategories of FA manufacturing lines because we no longer believe 
that a technical basis exists to distinguish these subcategories, and, 
in the July 29, 2015, action, we finalized emission limits for FA lines 
that apply to all types of products. However, as noted in the August 
29, 2017, proposal (82 FR 40977), the data (that we used to determine 
that FA line emission limits) contained errors in the analytical 
results for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. In fact, the data used 
to set the 2015 emission limits did not represent every product 
manufactured by the source category. Our review of the corrected FA 
line data received from the industry identified that the phenol 
emission from certain FA production lines were 1- to 2-orders of 
magnitude higher than other FA lines. In addition, we found that some 
FA lines, due to their lower pull rates, were never represented in the 
data used to set the 2015 emission limits for FA

[[Page 60881]]

lines. Based on discussions with Johns Manville (the only company 
currently operating FA lines), we were able to attribute the 
differences in phenol emissions to the use of different binder 
formulations in the manufacture of different wool fiberglass products 
for specific customer demands and end uses. We had also explained that 
PF binder application varies with the result that phenol emissions are 
either higher or lower depending on the product being manufactured (82 
FR 40977). Additionally, proposed 40 CFR 63.1381 presented the proposed 
subcategories. Based on our proposal, we conclude that the different 
products manufactured, and their represented manufacturing processes 
are an acceptable basis that Congress intended for distinguishing 
between classes or types of sources. We also note that ``type'' is 
``undefined and unrestricted'' in CAA section 112(d)(1). U.S. Sugar 
Corp., 830 F.3d at 656.
    One commenter noted that the final rule should include criteria for 
designating the appropriate subcategory for individual FA lines and 
suggested that the subcategory be assigned based on the type of product 
manufactured for 75 percent of the FA line's operating hours. We agree 
with the commenter. Therefore, we have revised the subcategory 
definitions in the final rule to include the percent-operating time 
criteria.
    One commenter objected to the EPA's proposal to extend the 
compliance date for FA lines because the EPA's action violates: (1) The 
clear compliance deadline requirements for air toxics standards 
provided in 40 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3); (2) the prohibition on a delay of 
effectiveness of more than 3 months for the purpose of reconsideration 
according to 40 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B); and (3) the core public notice-
and-comment requirements of the CAA and reasoned decision-making 
because the EPA did not provide any information, data, or documents 
related to the erroneous data in the public docket. The commenter also 
asserted that the EPA's proposed action is arbitrary and capricious 
because it is unsupported by evidence in the record and it conflicts 
with evidence in the record. The commenter argued that the EPA is 
changing its prior determination of the 2-year compliance date without 
the required acknowledgment and a reasoned explanation, including a 
justification for disregarding the facts previously found. The 
commenter also said EPA has given no indication that the concern it 
raised applies to more than one facility or a sufficient number of 
facilities to justify considering a new compliance date for all 
sources, as opposed to evaluating a request for a single compliance 
date extension of 1 year under the statutory mechanism for that 
purpose. In addition, the EPA has failed to consider or address in any 
way the health and environmental effects of the compliance delay it 
proposes.
    We disagree with the commenter. The direct final action did not 
stay the effectiveness of the July 29, 2015, final rule but rather 
extended the compliance date for FA lines by one year. (82 FR 34858). 
Moreover, because the EPA received adverse comments, the direct final 
notice was subsequently withdrawn and did not go into effect. 
Additionally, in a separate action, of August 29, 2017, the EPA 
proposed a different approach that was based on new data and 
information provided by Johns Manville, which can be found in the 
docket for this rulemaking. In this document, the EPA is taking action 
to finalize the approach presented in the August 29, 2017, that 
includes the creation of subscategories for FA lines. As such, 
assertions that the approach presented in the direct final and parallel 
proposal were insufficiently supported by the record are not relevant 
to this action. The final action is consistent with the statutory 
mandate and fully supported by the rulemaking record. As previously 
explained, CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) specifies that the compliance date 
for existing sources must provide for compliance as expeditiously as 
practicable, no later than 3 years after the effective date of the 
standard. The compliance deadline in this final rule does not exceed 
the 3-year period allowed under CAA section 112(i)(3)(A). As also 
previously explained, it reflects the period the EPA believes sources 
need to comply with these revised standards and conduct the necessary 
compliance tests (refer to section III.E of this action).
    We also disagree that the 3-month period for staying the 
effectiveness of a rule is relevant. The compliance extension contained 
within this action does not stay the effectiveness of a rule by 
altering the effective date. Instead, it simply extends the compliance 
date--an action which has its own effective date. Moreover, the CAA 
requirements at 40 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) specify the conditions for 
submitting and the requirements for responding to a petition for 
reconsideration. As we explained in the July 2017 action, we extended 
the compliance date on our own initiative because we discovered that 
the data on which the July 2015 final rule was based contained errors. 
We were not proceeding in response to a petition for reconsideration of 
the rule.
    As previously discussed regarding the response to comments on our 
proposed work practice standards for phenol emissions from RS lines, in 
section IV.C of this preamble, we disagree with the commenter that 
numerical standards are appropriate for phenol emissions from FA lines. 
For the reasons provided in section IV.C, we conclude that it is not 
feasible to establish a numerical standard for phenol emissions from FA 
lines manufacturing aerospace, air filtration, and pipe products.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for FA lines?
    Based on the corrected phenol emissions data and the different 
binder formulations used, we conclude it is appropriate to establish 
the Aerospace, HVAC, and OEM subcategories and their associated 
emission standards for FA lines in this final rule. We are providing a 
period of 3 years to allow owners and operators of FA lines sufficient 
time to plan and conduct compliance tests, submit notifications and 
compliance status reports, and to evaluate current control technology 
conditions, if needed.

E. Other Amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP

1. What other amendments did we propose to the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing NESHAP?
    In the August 29, 2017, action we proposed amendments to the 
incinerator operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to 
clearly indicate that the subsection applies to total RS or FA line 
emissions. In addition, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.1383(g)(1) 
to include this clarification as it relates to monitoring requirements.
    In the August 29, 2017, proposed rule, we revised 40 CFR 
63.1382(c)(8)(i) to include corrective action requirements as they 
apply to the new RS line emission limits, and the revised FA line 
emission limits. Similarly, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.1383(h) 
to reflect monitoring requirements applicable to the new RS line 
emission limits, and the revised FA line emission limits. In addition, 
we revised 40 CFR 63.1383(i)(1) to address owner or operators who use 
process modifications to control both formaldehyde and methanol 
emissions.
    The August 29, 2017, proposed rule included clarification for 
performance test requirements, as included in 40 CFR 63.1384(a)(3), and 
revised 40 CFR 63.1384(a)(9) to require the requirement to monitor and 
record the free-phenol content of the binder formulation.

[[Page 60882]]

    Lastly, we proposed to allow owners or operators that conducted 
emissions tests in 2016 in response to the EPA's ICR to submit those 
performance test results to demonstrate initial compliance with the new 
methanol emission limits for RS lines, rather than conducting 
additional tests.
2. How did our findings change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 
NESHAP?
    Based on comments received, we reiterate in this final action that 
the incinerator operating limits of 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) apply to total 
emissions from forming, cooling, and collection for RS lines and to 
total emissions from forming, cooling, and collection for FA lines.
3. What key comments did we receive regarding the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing NESHAP in general?
    One commenter noted that in the August 29, 2017, proposed rule 
preamble the EPA stated that ``We are also proposing amendments to the 
incinerator operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to 
clearly indicate that the subsection applies to cooling emissions. 
Incinerators would be required to control the final formaldehyde, 
methanol, and, where applicable, phenol emissions from forming, curing, 
and cooling processes for both FA and bonded RS lines.'' 82 FR 40976. 
The commenter suggested that the EPA should make clear that an owner or 
operator must meet the incinerator requirements in the event the 
cooling section on a particular line uses incineration as a means of 
control. The commenter indicated that the rule text revision was 
acceptable, but the preamble language was contradictory.
    We have finalized 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(g) as proposed, but have 
provided clarification in this preamble to indicate that the 
incinerator operating limit applies to the total emissions from the 
production line, and does not apply to individual incinerators used for 
each of the processes within the production line.
    As noted in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, one commenter noted 
that the proposed rule requires owners or operators to record the free-
phenol content of binder, but did not specify the method for 
determining free-phenol content of the binders. Based on discussions 
with the commenter, the industry does not have a method for assessing 
this parameter in binder formulations. We have, therefore, revised 40 
CFR 63.1384(a)(9) to require facilities to record and maintain records 
of the free-phenol content of the resin purchased. In addition, the 
facilities are required to maintain records of the formaldehyde and 
phenol content of the binder formulations used in the products.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the additional 
amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?
    We have revised the requirement for monitoring and recording the 
free-phenol content to specify that facilities must monitor and record 
the free-phenol content of the resin purchased, and not of the binder 
formulation. All other proposed rule revisions are finalized as 
proposed. We provide clarification in this preamble the intent of the 
incinerator operating limits included in the final rule, and indicate 
they are applicable to the RS and FA lines at wool fiberglass 
manufacturing facilities.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    Currently, only three wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 
continue to use RS lines to manufacture a bonded product. These three 
facilities operate six bonded RS lines that would be affected by the 
revised emission limits. Additionally, two facilities continue to use 
FA lines to manufacture a bonded product. The EPA is not currently 
aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded RS or FA 
lines.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Based on the test data received in response to the 2015 ICR, the 
three facilities with bonded RS lines currently meet the final emission 
limits for formaldehyde and methanol. Furthermore, based on available 
information, we expect the two facilities with bonded FA lines will be 
able to meet the emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol 
without additional controls. Therefore, the emission limits for 
formaldehyde, methanol and phenol will likley not result in further HAP 
emissions reductions. Also, we do not anticipate secondary 
environmental impacts from the final amendments to the Wool Fiberglass 
Manufacturing NESHAP because we expect that owners or operators will 
not need to install additional control devices to meet any of the 
standards.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Because the existing facilities will not need to install add-on 
control devices or implement process modifications to comply with the 
final emissions standards, and because the EPA is allowing facilities 
to use the test reports submitted in response to Part 2 of the ICR to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the final emission limits for RS 
lines, the five facilities that are subject to the final emission 
standards will not incur increased costs for installing or upgrading 
emissions control systems. However, the facilities that are subject to 
this final action will each incur costs related to the testing and 
notifications requirements related to emission limits, and additional 
monitoring and recordkeeping activities related to work practice 
standards. The total annual cost of this final action is approximately 
$13,131/year (2016 dollars).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses evaluate changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
directly affected markets are significant, impacts on other markets are 
also examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the 
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can 
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a 
rule.
    The final standards for RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 
facilities do not impose control costs or additional testing costs on 
affected facilities. However, affected facilities will have reporting 
requirements (i.e., an initial notification and a notification of 
compliance status) associated with the final formaldehyde and methanol 
emission limits and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements 
associated with the phenol work practice standard. We estimate that the 
total annual cost of this final action is approximately $13,131/year 
(2016 dollars). The economic impacts associated with the costs of this 
final action are quite low; each affected firm is estimated to 
experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues.

E. What are the benefits?

    Based on the data collected under Part 2 of the ICR, the actual 
formaldehyde emissions from all bonded RS lines are lower than the 
level allowed under the 1999 NESHAP. Although the final standards for 
formaldehyde from RS lines do not achieve further emissions reductions, 
the final emission limits for methanol and the work practice standards 
for phenol ensure that the emissions reductions that have been achieved 
since the 1999 NESHAP will persist into the future and that emissions 
will not increase.

[[Page 60883]]

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income 
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), and it does not establish an 
environmental health or safety standard.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This final action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 1160.10. This action does not change the information 
collection requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. None of the 
five entities affected by this action are small entities, using the 
Small Business Administration definition of small business for the 
affected NAICS code (327993), which is 1,500 employees for the ultimate 
parent company.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. This action readopts the existing emission limit 
for formaldehyde and establishes new emission limits for methanol and a 
work practice standard for phenol emissions for RS lines. This action 
also includes revisions to the standards for FA lines. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 
NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) 
Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 
We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases.
    As discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 
68029), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, we conducted searches for 
EPA Methods 5, 318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. 
These searches did not identify any VCS that were potentially 
applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). It 
does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing.

    Dated: December 15, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA is amending title 
40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

0
2. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding the definitions, in 
alphabetical order, for ``Aerospace and air filtration

[[Page 60884]]

products''; ``Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) 
products''; and ``Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products'' and 
revising the definition of ``Pipe product'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1381  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Aerospace and air filtration products means bonded wool fiberglass 
insulation manufactured for the thermal and acoustical insulation of 
aircraft and/or the air filtration markets. For the purposes of this 
subpart, a production line that manufactures these types of products 
for 75 percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is 
considered to be an aerospace and air filtration products line.
* * * * *
    Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) products means 
bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured for use in HVAC systems 
for the distribution of air or for thermal and acoustical insulation of 
HVAC distribution lines. For the purposes of this subpart, a production 
line that manufactures these types of products for 75 percent or more 
of the line's annual operating hours is considered to be an HVAC 
products line.
* * * * *
    Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products means bonded wool 
fiberglass insulation manufactured for OEM entities that fabricate the 
insulation into parts used as thermal or acoustical insulation in 
products including, but not limited to, appliances, refrigeration 
units, and office interior equipment. For the purposes of this subpart, 
a production line that manufactures these types of products for 75 
percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is considered to 
be an OEM products line.
    Pipe product means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured 
on a flame attenuation manufacturing line and having a loss on ignition 
of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m\3\ (3 to 6 lb/ft\3\). 
For the purposes of this subpart, a production line that manufactures 
these types of products for 75 percent or more of the line's annual 
operating hours is considered to be a pipe product line.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8)(i), 
and (c)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1382  Emission standards.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) The owner or operator must operate each incinerator used to 
comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation 
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart such that any 3-hour block 
average temperature in the firebox does not fall below the average 
established during the performance test as specified in Sec.  63.1384.
* * * * *
    (8)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 
1 hour when the monitored process parameter level(s) is outside the 
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in Sec.  
63.1384 for the process modification(s) used to comply with the 
emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified in 
Table 2 to this subpart, and complete corrective actions in a timely 
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
* * * * *
    (9) The owner or operator must use a resin in the formulation of 
binder such that the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the 
resin used do not exceed the respective ranges contained in the 
specification for the resin used during the performance test as 
specified in Sec.  63.1384.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h), 
(i)(1), and (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1383  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (g)(1) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to comply with 
the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart must install, calibrate, maintain, 
and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures and records 
the operating temperature in the firebox of each incinerator.
* * * * *
    (h) The owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device 
to comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation 
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart must install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously monitor and 
record the gas pressure drop across each scrubber and the scrubbing 
liquid flow rate to each scrubber according to the procedures in the 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The pressure drop monitor 
must be certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within 250 pascals (1 inch water gauge) over its operating 
range, and the flow rate monitor must be certified by its manufacturer 
to be accurate within 5 percent over its operating range. 
The owner or operator must also continuously monitor and record the 
feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing liquid.
    (i)(1) The owner or operator who uses process modifications to 
comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation 
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart must establish a correlation 
between formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions, as appropriate, 
and the process parameter(s) to be monitored.
* * * * *
    (j) The owner or operator must monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of each resin shipment received 
and of each resin used in the formulation of binder.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text, (a)(3), (a)(9), and (c) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  63.1384  Performance test requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.1382. Compliance is demonstrated 
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each 
of the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.1382. The owner or 
operator shall conduct the performance test according to the procedures 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and in this section. If the owner or 
operator conducted an emissions test in 2016 according to the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1384(a)(9) and Sec.  63.1385 in 
response to the EPA's Information Collection Request, the owner or 
operator can use the results of the emissions test to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the emission limits for rotary spin lines 
specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (3) During each performance test, the owner or operator must 
monitor and record the glass pull rate for each glass-melting furnace 
and, if different, the glass pull rate for each rotary spin 
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line. Record the 
glass pull rate every 15 minutes during any performance test required 
by this subpart and determine the arithmetic average of the recorded 
measurements for each test run and calculate the average of the three 
test runs. If a rotary spin or flame attenuation line shares one or 
more emissions points with another rotary spin or flame attenuation 
line(s), owners or operators can conduct the

[[Page 60885]]

performance test while each of the process lines with the shared 
emissions point(s) is operating as specified in paragraph (a)(8) of 
this section, rather than testing each of the shared lines separately. 
In these cases, owners or operators must use the combined glass pull 
rate for the process lines with the shared emissions point(s) to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 to 
this subpart.
* * * * *
    (9) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line 
and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart must 
conduct performance tests using the resin with the highest free-
formaldehyde content. During the performance test of each rotary spin 
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated 
by this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the 
free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the resin, the binder 
formulation used, and the product LOI and density.
* * * * *
    (c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in 
Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde and methanol for rotary spin 
manufacturing lines; formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for flame 
attenuation manufacturing lines; and chromium compounds for gas-fired 
glass-melting furnaces, use the following equation:
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1385  Test methods and procedures

    (a) * * *
    (8) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the 
determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin. The owner or 
operator shall use vendor specifications to determine the free-phenol 
content of resin.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) The formulation of each binder batch and the LOI and density 
for each product manufactured on a rotary spin manufacturing line or 
flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of this 
subpart, and the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of each 
resin shipment received and of each resin used in the binder 
formulation;
* * * * *

0
 8. Table 2 to subpart NNN of part 63 is amended by:
0
 a. Revising entries 7 and 8;
0
 b. Redesignating entries 9 through 13 as entries 11 through 15;
0
 c. Adding new entries 9 and 10;
0
 d. Revising newly redesignated entries 11 through 15;
0
 e. Adding entries 16 through 19; and
0
 f. Adding footnote 5.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

                     Table 2 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     And you commenced   Your emission limits
       If your source is a:            construction:           are: \1\           And you must comply by: \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
7. Rotary spin manufacturing line  On or before March    1.2 lb formaldehyde   June 14, 2002.
                                    31, 1997.             per ton of glass
                                                          pulled \5\.
8. Rotary spin manufacturing line  After March 31, 1997  0.8 lb formaldehyde   June 14, 1999.
                                                          per ton of glass
                                                          pulled \5\.
9. Rotary spin manufacturing line  On or before          1.2 lb formaldehyde   December 26, 2020.
                                    November 25, 2011.    per ton of glass
                                                          pulled 1.1 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.
10. Rotary spin manufacturing      After November 25,    0.8 lb formaldehyde   December 26, 2017.\4\
 line.                              2011.                 per ton of glass
                                                          pulled 0.65 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.
11. Flame-attenuation line         After March 31,       7.8 lb formaldehyde   June 14, 1999.
 manufacturing a heavy-density      1997, but on or       per ton of glass
 product.                           before November 25,   pulled \5\.
                                    2011.
12. Flame-attenuation line         On or before March    6.8 lb formaldehyde   June 14, 2002.
 manufacturing a pipe product.      31, 1997.             per ton of glass
                                                          pulled \5\.
13. Flame-attenuation line         After March 31,       6.8 lb formaldehyde   June 14, 1999.
 manufacturing a pipe product.      1997, but before      per ton of glass
                                    November 25, 2011.    pulled \5\.
14. Flame-attenuation line         On or before          27 lb formaldehyde    December 26, 2020.
 manufacturing an aerospace, air    November 25, 2011.    per ton of glass
 filtration, or pipe product.                             pulled 8.9 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.
15. Flame-attenuation line         After November 25,    18.0 lb formaldehyde  December 26, 2017.\4\
 manufacturing an aerospace, air    2011.                 per ton of glass
 filtration, or pipe product.                             pulled 4.0 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.
16. Flame-attenuation line         On or before          2.8 lb formaldehyde   December 26, 2020.
 manufacturing an HVAC product.     November 25, 2011.    per ton of glass
                                                          pulled 7.3 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled 0.4 lb
                                                          phenol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.
17. Flame-attenuation line         After November 25,    2.4 lb formaldehyde   December 26, 2017.\4\
 manufacturing an HVAC product.     2011.                 per ton of glass
                                                          pulled 1.5 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled 0.4 lb
                                                          phenol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.

[[Page 60886]]

 
18. Flame-attenuation line         On or before          5.0 lb formaldehyde   December 26, 2020.
 manufacturing an OEM product.      November 25, 2011.    per ton of glass
                                                          pulled 5.7 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled 31 lb
                                                          phenol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.
19. Flame-attenuation line         After November 25,    2.9 lb formaldehyde   December 26, 2017.\4\
 manufacturing an OEM product.      2011.                 per ton of glass
                                                          pulled 1.1 lb
                                                          methanol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled 22 lb
                                                          phenol per ton of
                                                          glass pulled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The numeric limits do not apply during startup and shutdown.
\2\ Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources
  have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance.
 * * * * * * *
\4\ Or initial startup, whichever is later.
\5\ This limit does not apply after December 26, 2020.
 

[FR Doc. 2017-27797 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P