National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review, 14984-15014 [2018-06541]

Download as PDF 14984 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309; FRL–9975–99– OAR] RIN 2060–AT47 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category, determined that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. However, the EPA is proposing to revise provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); add requirements for electronic submittal of performance test results; revise certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and make other miscellaneous technical and editorial changes. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they would result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2018. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before May 7, 2018. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by April 11, 2018, then we will hold a public hearing on April 23, 2018 at the location described in the ADDRESSES section. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the public hearing will be April 19, 2018. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309, at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. (See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for detail about how EPA treats submitted comments.) Regulations.gov is our preferred method of receiving comments. However, other submission methods are accepted. To ship or send mail via the United States Postal Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2004–0309, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. Use the following Docket Center address if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery verification signatures will be available only during regular business hours. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at EPA Headquarters, EPA WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is requested, then we will provide details about the public hearing on our website at: https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/wetformed-fiberglass-mat-productionnational-emission-standards. The EPA does not intend to publish another document in the Federal Register announcing any updates on the request for a public hearing. Please contact Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for instructions on registering and attending a public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Mary Johnson, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243–01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 5025; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: johnson.mary@epa.gov or Christian Fellner, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243– 01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle ADDRESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4003; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and email address: fellner.christian@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (Mail Code C539–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5470; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: palma.ted@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E–19J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312) 353–6266; and email address: ayres.sara@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public hearing. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared to show a current, valid state- or federal-approved picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. An expired form of identification will not be permitted. Please note that the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver’s license is issued by a noncompliant state, you must present an additional form of identification to enter a federal facility. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badge, passports, enhanced driver’s licenses, and military identification cards. Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at https://www.dhs.gov/ real-id-frequently-asked-questions. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309. All documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004– 0309. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov or email. This type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed in section I.C of this preamble. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https:// www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:56 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/dockets. 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: AEGL acute exposure guideline level AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model ARMA Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BACT best available control technology BBDR biologically based dose response CAA Clean Air Act CalEPA California EPA CBI Confidential Business Information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HCl hydrochloric acid HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IBR incorporation by reference ICR information collection request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System kg/Mg kilograms per megagram km kilometer LAER lowest achievable emission rate lb/ton pounds per ton MACT maximum achievable control technology mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAS National Academy of Sciences NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 14985 NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PRA Paperwork Reduction Act QA quality assurance RACT reasonably available control technology RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year UF uncertainty factor mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act URE unit risk estimate VCS voluntary consensus standards 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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? D. What other relevant background information and data are available? III. Analytical Procedures A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? B. How do we perform the technology review? C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source category? IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects? C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What other actions are we proposing? E. What compliance dates are we proposing? V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 14986 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation 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) and 1 CFR Part 51 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and the associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. The Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category was added to the list of categories of major sources of HAP published under section 112(c) of the CAA in an action that concurrently promulgated NESHAP for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production source category (67 FR 17824, April 11, 2002). As defined in that action, in wetformed fiberglass mat production, glass fibers are bonded with an organic resin. The mat is formed as the resin is dried and cured in heated ovens. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION NAICS code 1 Source category NESHAP Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production ..................................... Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production .................................... 1 North American Industry Classification System. B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/ stationary-sources-air-pollution/wetformed-fiberglass-mat-productionnational-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at https:// www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309). comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309. II. Background C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 327212 A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD– ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to further address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ‘‘developments in practices, processes, or control technologies’’ that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology review.’’ The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document, CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source standards and area source standards. ‘‘Major E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules sources’’ are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For major sources, CAA section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), EPA may set work practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards. The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA section 112(f). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the two-step approach for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency’s interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 determinations and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008). The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination ‘‘considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety ‘‘in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately [1-in-1 million], as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less frequently than every 8 years. In conducting this review, which we call the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). 1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 14987 B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions? The NESHAP for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category were promulgated on April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17824), in an action that also added the source category to the list of categories of major sources of HAP published under section 112(c) of the CAA and to the source category schedule for NESHAP. The NESHAP are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. Wet-formed fiberglass mat is used as a substrate for multiple roofing products, as reinforcement for various plastic, cement, and gypsum products, and in miscellaneous specialty products. The fiberglass mat is made of glass fibers that have been bonded with a formaldehyde-based resin. Methanol is also present in some, but not all, resins used to produce wet-formed fiberglass mat. In a typical wet-formed fiberglass mat production line, glass fibers are mixed with water and emulsifiers in large mixing vats to form a slurry of fibers and water. The glass fiber slurry is then pumped to a mat forming machine, where it is dispensed in a uniform curtain over a moving screen belt. The mat is then carried beneath a binder saturator, where binder solution is uniformly applied onto the surface of the mat. This resin-binder application process includes the screen passing over a vacuum which draws away the excess binder solution for recycling. The mat of fibers and binder then passes into drying and curing ovens that use heated air to carry away excess moisture and harden (i.e., cure) the binder. Upon exiting the ovens, the mat is cooled, trimmed, wound, and packaged to product specifications. The primary HAP emitted during production of wetformed fiberglass mat are formaldehyde, which is classified as a known, probable, or possible carcinogen, and methanol. We are aware of seven wetformed fiberglass mat production facilities that are subject to the NESHAP. Five of the affected facilities have single mat lines and two of the affected facilities have two mat lines. The affected source is each wetformed fiberglass mat drying and curing oven. The NESHAP regulates emissions of HAP through emission standards for formaldehyde, which is also used as a surrogate for total HAP emissions. Facilities subject to the NESHAP must meet either a mass emission limit or percentage reduction requirement for each drying and curing oven. The emission standards are the same for new and existing drying and curing ovens. The emission limits for the exhaust from E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 14988 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules new and existing drying and curing ovens are (1) a maximum formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced) or (2) a minimum of 96percent destruction efficiency of formaldehyde. Thermal oxidizers or similar controls (e.g., regenerative thermal oxidizer, regenerative catalytic oxidizer) are used by facilities subject to the NESHAP to control their drying and curing oven exhausts. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? The EPA used several means to collect the information necessary to conduct the residual risk assessment and technology review for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production source category. To confirm whether facilities identified as potentially subject to the NESHAP were in fact subject to the standards, we requested air permits and/or performance test data from various state and local agencies. After developing our final list of affected facilities, the status of each facility was confirmed in consultation with the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) and ARMAmember companies. The EPA had discussions with the four companies that own one or more of the affected facilities regarding each facility’s production process and emission sources, available emissions test data and emissions estimates, measures used to control emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. The facilityspecific information from state and local agencies and companies with affected facilities provided support for this action’s risk and technology reviews. D. What other relevant background information and data are available? The EPA used multiple sources of information to support this proposed action. Before developing the final list of affected facilities described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database was used as a tool to identify potentially affected facilities with wet-formed fiberglass mat production operations that are subject to the NESHAP. The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. The 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database provided facility-specific data and MACT category data that were used to supplement the performance test data in VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 developing the modeling file for the risk review. The NEI is a database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes information necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related emissions release parameters. In conducting the technology review, we examined information in the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify technologies in use and determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. The RBLC is a database that contains case-specific information of air pollution technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. The EPA also reviewed other information sources to determine if there have been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category. We reviewed regulatory actions for emission sources similar to mat drying and curing ovens and conducted a review of literature published by industry organizations, technical journals, and government organizations. III. Analytical Procedures In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal. A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making? As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 whether or not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.2 The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The scope of EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with EPA’s response to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that: ‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to assess 2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system. E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA’s consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’.’’ See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety. The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category. The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 health reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.’’ 3 In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens affecting the same target organ system. Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. Because of the contribution to total HAP risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR review, such estimates of total HAP risks would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative assessments would 3 The EPA’s responses to this and all other key recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memorandum to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup titled EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 14989 compound those uncertainties, making the assessments too unreliable. B. How do we perform the technology review? Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts, and we also consider the emission reductions. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ‘‘development’’: • Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions reduction; • Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; • Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and • Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards). In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 14990 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules that could be applied to emission sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, specifically drying and curing ovens, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Additionally, during discussions with affected facilities, we asked about developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source category? The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this action contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risks (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 and described in their peer review report issued in 2010; 4 they are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report. 1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release characteristics? Data for nine wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines at seven facilities were used to create the RTR emissions dataset as described in sections II.C and II.D of this preamble. The emission sources included in the RTR emissions dataset include drying and curing 4 U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 ovens, which are the primary HAP emission sources at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities and currently regulated by the NESHAP. The RTR emissions dataset also includes emissions from the binder application vacuum exhaust which is the emission release point for the resin-binder application process. As stated in section II.B of this preamble, the primary HAP emitted are formaldehyde and methanol. Actual emissions estimates for drying and curing oven exhaust and binder application vacuum exhaust at the seven affected facilities were based on stack test data, NEI data, and engineering estimates. For drying and curing oven exhaust, actual formaldehyde emissions were based on emissions data from the most recent stack test. For the facilities using binders containing methanol in addition to formaldehyde, actual methanol emissions from the drying and curing oven exhaust were estimated by adjusting each drying and curing oven’s actual formaldehyde emissions estimate based on the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for each oven. For binder application vacuum exhaust, actual formaldehyde emissions and actual methanol emissions at facilities using binders containing methanol were based on stack test emissions data in the limited instances where available. Where formaldehyde data were unavailable, actual formaldehyde emissions were estimated using a factor based on data from one affected facility that tested both the uncontrolled emissions from the drying and curing oven and the emissions from the binder application vacuum exhaust. Where methanol data were unavailable, actual methanol emissions from the binder application vacuum exhaust were estimated by adjusting the actual formaldehyde emissions estimate for the binder application vacuum exhaust based on the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for the oven associated with each binder application process. For each emission release point (i.e., drying and curing oven exhaust and binder application vacuum exhaust), emissions release characteristic data such as emission release height, diameter, temperature, velocity, flow rate, and locational latitude/longitude coordinates were identified. For drying and curing ovens, the emission release point is an exhaust stack. For the resinbinder application process, the emission release point is the location of the binder application vacuum exhaust, which is most commonly routed to one PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 or more roof vents. With one exception, the binder application vacuum exhaust release points were modeled as stacks. The one process that exhausts to a louvered sidewall was modeled as a fugitive release. Parameters for the emission release points were primarily obtained from performance tests, the 2014 NEI database, air permits, and information collected in consultation with each facility. Default parameter values based on MACT source category 2014 NEI information were used for the binder application vacuum exhaust when site-specific information was not available. The EPA conducted a quality assurance (QA) check of source locations, emission release characteristics, and annual emissions estimates. In addition, each company had the opportunity to review the information regarding their sources and provide updated source data. The revisions we received and incorporated into the modeling file regarded emission release point details (e.g., number of emission release points, release height and diameter, latitude/longitude coordinates). Additional details on the data and methods used to develop actual emissions estimates for the risk modeling, including EPA’s QA review, are provided in the memorandum, WetFormed Fiberglass: Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation (Modeling File Documentation Memo), which is available in the docket for this action. 2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower than the emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted under the MACT standards is referred to as the ‘‘MACTallowable’’ emissions level. We discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) MACT-allowable emissions estimates were based on the level of control required by the Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP. For drying and curing ovens, 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH requires a 96-percent destruction efficiency for formaldehyde. The MACT-allowable formaldehyde emissions for drying and curing oven exhaust were calculated based on the actual formaldehyde emissions levels adjusted to reflect 96 percent control, which is the minimum percent destruction efficiency for formaldehyde allowed under the NESHAP. MACTallowable methanol emissions from drying and curing oven exhaust were estimated by adjusting each drying and curing oven’s MACT-allowable formaldehyde emissions estimate based on the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for each oven. For binder application vacuum exhaust, which has no control requirements under the NESHAP, the MACT-allowable formaldehyde and methanol emissions were assumed equal to the actual emissions estimates with the exception of one facility where the binder application vacuum exhaust is combined with the drying and curing oven exhaust. The Modeling File Documentation Memo, available in the docket for this action, contains additional information on the development of estimated MACTallowable emissions for the risk modeling. 3. How did we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks? Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3). The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. a. Dispersion Modeling The air dispersion model, AERMOD, used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing air VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.5 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block 6 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health risks. These dose-response values are the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP. They are available at https:// www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants and are discussed in more detail later in this section. b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Cancer In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper bound estimate of an individual’s probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 5 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005). 6 A census block is the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 14991 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate. In 2004, the EPA determined that the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) cancer dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 × 10–9 per milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) was based on better science than the 1991 IRIS dose-response value (1.3 × 10–5 per mg/m3), and we switched from using the IRIS value to the CIIT value in risk assessments supporting regulatory actions. Based on subsequent published research, however, the EPA changed its determination regarding the CIIT model, and, in 2010, the EPA returned to using the 1991 IRIS value. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed its review of the EPA’s draft assessment in April of 2011 (https://www.nap.edu/ catalog.php?recordid=13142), and the EPA has been working on revising the formaldehyde assessment. The EPA will follow the NAS Report recommendations and will present results obtained by implementing the biologically based dose response (BBDR) model for formaldehyde. The EPA will compare these estimates with those currently presented in the External Review draft of the assessment and will discuss their strengths and weaknesses. As recommended by the NAS committee, appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses will be an integral component of implementing the BBDR model. The draft IRIS assessment will be revised in response to the NAS peer review and public comments and the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS database. In the interim, we will present findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a primary estimate and may also consider other information as the science evolves. To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from the facilities in the source category, EPA summed the risks for each of the E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 14992 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules carcinogenic HAP 7 emitted by the modeled sources. Cancer incidence and the distribution of individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km of the sources were also estimated for the source category by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchand retrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/ search.do?details=&vocabName= IRIS%20Glossary), defined as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.’’ In cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS database is not available or where the EPA determines that using a value other than the RfC is 7 EPA classifies carcinogens as: Carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential. These classifications also coincide with the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R–00/002) was published as a supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from https:// cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data— an SAB Advisory, available at https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915 BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ ecadv02001.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 appropriate, the chronic noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA. d. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other Than Cancer For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,8 worst-case dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual. To characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure by the acute doseresponse value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs. An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated 8 In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual emissions rates by a default factor (usually 10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 for a specified exposure duration.’’ 9 Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.10 They are guideline levels for ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. 9 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 10 NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ documents/sop_final_standing_operating_ procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National Advisory Committee/AEGL Committee ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https:// www.epa.gov/aegl). E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 11 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.’’ Id. at 1. An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than its corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 2s. The maximum HQs from our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). For this source category, hourly emissions data were used to estimate maximum hourly emissions. In general, emissions used to assess the potential health risks due to acute exposure were estimated using the same approach used to develop actual emissions estimates described in section III.C.1 of this preamble, except that emissions used to estimate acute exposure were based on maximum hourly emission rates reported during stack tests. For drying and curing oven exhaust, formaldehyde emissions were based on maximum hourly emissions data, considering all test runs from available stack tests. For the facilities using binders containing methanol, methanol emissions from the drying and curing oven exhaust were estimated by adjusting each drying and curing oven’s formaldehyde emissions estimate based on the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for each oven. For binder 11 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20 Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%20 2014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-22014%29.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 application vacuum exhaust, formaldehyde emissions and methanol emissions at facilities using binders containing methanol were based on maximum hourly emissions data from stack tests in the limited instances where available. Where formaldehyde data were unavailable, formaldehyde emissions were estimated using a factor based on one facility’s uncontrolled emissions from its drying and curing oven and emissions from its binder application vacuum exhaust. Where methanol data were unavailable, methanol emissions were estimated by adjusting the formaldehyde emissions estimate for the binder application vacuum exhaust based on the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for the oven associated with each binder application vacuum exhaust. A further discussion of the development of emissions used to estimate acute exposure for the risk modeling can be found in the risk document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. 4. How did we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening assessment? The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined whether any sources in the source category emitted any HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB–HAP), as identified in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 1, Appendix D, at https:// www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessmentand-modeling-air-toxics-riskassessment-reference-library). For the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, we did not identify emissions of any PB–HAP. Because we did not identify PB–HAP emissions, no further evaluation of PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 14993 multipathway risk was conducted for this source category. 5. How did we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment? a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological Benchmarks The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for adverse environmental effects as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ as ‘‘any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.’’ The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ in its screening assessment: Six PB– HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four exposure media: terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP (other than lead), both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 14994 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB–HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread. For further information on how the environmental risk screening assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, we did not identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP included in the screen. Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted. 6. How did we conduct facility-wide assessments? To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ‘‘non-category’’ data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset from that used for the source category assessments described in this preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the facilitywide analyses, including all facilitywide risks and the percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks. 7. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment? Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report. a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on maximum hourly emission rates and emission adjustment factors, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability. c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risks or the incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block is not well represented by a single location. d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective’’ (EPA’s 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs. Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That is, they represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity’’ (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit).12 In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.13 Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. 12 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_ internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details= &glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 13 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 To derive dose-response values that are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but not all combinations of ecological assessment/ environmental HAP had benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and widespread. For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds in the group to estimate risk. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 14995 e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during this same time period. For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions occur simultaneously. IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses? 1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based on actual emissions, show the cancer MIR posed by the seven facilities is less than 1-in1 million, with formaldehyde as the major contributor to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.0003 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 3,000 years. No people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1in-1 million from HAP emitted from the seven facilities in this source category. The maximum chronic noncancer HI value for the source category could be up to 0.006 (respiratory) driven by emissions of formaldehyde. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels above 1. Risk results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-allowable emissions indicate that the cancer MIR could be as high as 1-in-1 million with formaldehyde emissions driving the risks, and that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be as high as 0.009 at the MACT-allowable E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 14996 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules emissions level with formaldehyde emissions driving the TOSHI. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category considering allowable emissions is expected to be about 0.0009 excess cancer cases per year or 1 excess case in every 1,000 years. Based on allowable emission rates, no people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million. 2. Acute Risk Results Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP that has an acute doseresponse value (formaldehyde and methanol). Based on actual emissions, the highest screening acute HQ value was 0.6 (based on the acute REL for formaldehyde). Since none of the screening HQ were greater than 1, further refinement of the estimates was not warranted. 3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results No PB–HAP were emitted from this source category; therefore, a multipathway assessment was not warranted. 4. Environmental Risk Screening Results We did not identify any PB–HAP or acid gas emissions from this source category. We are unaware of any adverse environmental effect caused by emissions of HAP that are emitted by the source category. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 5. Facility-Wide Risk Results The results of the facility-wide (both MACT and non-MACT sources) assessment indicate that four of the seven facilities included in the analysis have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 6-in-1 million, mainly driven by formaldehyde emissions from non-MACT sources. The total estimated cancer incidence from the seven facilities is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 1,000 years. Approximately 13,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources of the seven facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be less than 1 (at a respiratory HI of 0.5), mainly driven by emissions of acrylic acid and formaldehyde from non-MACT sources. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation? To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.14 Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for two of the 11 demographic groups, African American and people living below the poverty level, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those exposed to source category emissions from the wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities, we find that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which is available in the docket for this action. B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects? 1. Risk Acceptability As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an ‘acceptable risk’ that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source 14 Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 category. As discussed above, we consider our analysis of risk from allowable emissions to be conservative and, as such, to represent an upper bound estimate of risk from emissions allowed under the NESHAP for the source category. The inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category is less than 1-in-1 million, based on actual emissions. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.0003 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case in 3,000 years, based on actual emissions. For allowable emissions, we estimate that the inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in this source category is 1-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.0009 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,000 years, based on allowable emissions. The Agency estimates that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure is 0.006 due to actual emissions and 0.009 due to allowable emissions. The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts from worst-case 1hour emissions indicates that no HAP exceed an acute HQ of 1. Since no PB–HAP are emitted by this source category, a multipathway risk assessment was not warranted. In determining whether risk is acceptable, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. The results indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are less than or equal to 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions. Finally, the evaluation of acute noncancer risks was conservative and showed that acute risks are below a level of concern. Further, since no PB– HAP are emitted, no multipathway risks are expected as a result of HAP emissions from this source category. Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the risk remaining after implementation of the of the existing MACT standards for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category is acceptable. 2. Ample Margin of Safety Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk reductions, from further available control options would result in minimal health benefits. Moreover, as noted in our discussion of the technology review in section IV.C of this preamble, no additional measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from affected sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category. Thus, we are proposing that the 2002 WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 3. Adverse Environmental Effects We did not identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP included in our environmental risk screening, and we are unaware of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category. Therefore, we do not expect adverse environmental effects as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for control of formaldehyde emissions from drying and curing ovens at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. In conducting the technology review, we reviewed various informational sources VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 regarding the emissions from drying and curing ovens. The review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews of air permits for wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities, regulatory actions for emission sources similar to mat drying and curing ovens, and a review of relevant literature. We reviewed these data sources for information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the development of the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP. We also looked for information on improvements in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since development of the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NEHSAP. After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies to reduce formaldehyde emissions from the drying and curing ovens used at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. We considered the following four control technologies and processes in our review: carbon absorbers, biofilters, thermal oxidizers, and lowHAP or no-HAP binder formulations. Due to the characteristics of the drying and curing oven exhaust, we concluded that neither carbon adsorbers or biofilters are technically feasible control options. Further, while advancements have been made with low and no-HAP binder formulations, they are not broadly available for the various types of wet-formed fiberglass produced. For example, some wet-formed fiberglass products are used in roofing applications, and mats that are produced with low or no-HAP binders tend to sag, shrink, or become distorted when they come into contact with hot asphalt used in roofing applications. Therefore, we concluded the use of low or no-HAP binder formulations is not a technically feasible process change. We considered improvements in thermal oxidizers given they were identified as technically feasible for reducing HAP emission from drying and curing ovens in the 2002 rulemaking and because all facilities currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH use thermal oxidizers to reduce formaldehyde emissions. We did not identify any improvements in performance of thermal oxidizers at existing facilities that consistently demonstrated greater reduction in formaldehyde emissions than is currently required by the NESHAP. Furthermore, a more stringent standard could have the perverse environmental impact of increasing HAP emissions. As owner/operators PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 14997 move towards use of lower HAP binders, HAP emissions are reduced. However, due to the relatively dilute HAP emissions in the exhaust gases, it becomes more difficult to maintain high percent reductions in emissions. A more stringent standard would likely require the refurbishment or replacement of existing thermal oxidizers and could slow the development and adoption of the lower HAP binders. Finally, there are cost considerations that militate against setting more stringent standards for formaldehyde under CAA section 112(d(6). For example, any new facility that becomes subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH would likely be a rebuilt line at an existing location and would likely use the existing thermal oxidizer rather than installing a new thermal oxidizer. A more stringent standard could instead require the replacement of the existing thermal oxidizer, resulting in a large capital expenditure for minor HAP reductions. Based on the technology review, we determined that there are no costeffective developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH under CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our technology review can be found in the memorandum, Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which is available in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on our proposed decision. D. What other actions are we proposing? In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is proposing additional revisions. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various other changes to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and miscellaneous technical and editorial changes to the regulatory text. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are discussed below. 1. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 14998 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.2986(g)(1). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further described below. The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully done so. In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. Owners and operators of all seven wetformed fiberglass mat production facilities employ thermal oxidizer controls to limit emissions from drying and curing ovens. Ovens along with their thermal oxidizer controls begin operating and reach designated operational temperatures prior to fiberglass mat first entering the oven and remain operating at those temperatures at least until mat is no longer being dried and cured in the oven. Because thermal oxidizer controls are employed during all periods that the drying and curing oven is processing fiberglass mat, there is no need to establish separate formaldehyde standards for periods of startup and shutdown. We do, however, find it necessary to propose establishing definitions of startup and shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 HHHH. The proposed definitions are needed to clarify that it is not the setting in operation of, and cessation of operation of, the drying and curing oven (i.e., affected source) that accurately define startup and shutdown, but, rather, the setting in operation of, and cessation of operation of, the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat. The formaldehyde standards can only be met during periods that fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the oven. Therefore, it is appropriate to define startup and shutdown on such periods. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of’’ sources ‘‘says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.’’) As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to ’invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.’’). In addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Although no statutory language compels EPA to set standards for malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such information. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). a. 40 CFR 63.2986 General Duty We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2986(g) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2986(g) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.2986. 14999 language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. b. SSM Plan We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary. d. 40 CFR 63.2992 Performance Testing We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2992(e). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered ‘‘representative’’ for purposes of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ‘‘as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test’’ available to the Administrator upon request, but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information. c. Compliance With Standards We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current e. Monitoring We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 15000 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 ‘‘no.’’ The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions’ SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.2994(a)(2) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ‘‘The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2).’’ f. 40 CFR 63.2998 Recordkeeping We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2998(e). The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2998(e) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2988(e). We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source’s SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units. g. 40 CFR 63.3000 Reporting We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3000(c). The replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in a compliance report already required under this rule on a semiannual basis. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard. We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and submittal requirements. The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. h. Definitions We are proposing that definitions of ‘‘Startup’’ and ‘‘Shutdown’’ be added to 40 CFR 63.3004. The current rule relies on the 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, definitions of these terms which are based on the setting in operation of, and cessation of operation of, the affected source (i.e., drying and curing oven). As previously explained in this section, the formaldehyde standards can only be met during periods that fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the oven. Because we are proposing that standards in this rule apply at all times, we find it appropriate to propose definitions of startup and shutdown based on these periods to clarify that it is the setting in operation of, and cessation of operation of, the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat that define startup and shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. The new definition of ‘‘Startup’’ being proposed reads: ‘‘Startup means the setting in operation of the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Startup begins when resin infused fiberglass mat enters the oven to be dried and cured for the first time or after a shutdown event.’’ The new definition of ‘‘Shutdown’’ being proposed reads: ‘‘Shutdown means the cessation of operation of the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Shutdown ends when fiberglass mat is no longer being dried or cured in the oven and the oven no longer contains any resin infused binder.’’ We are proposing that the definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ in 40 CFR 63.3004 be revised to remove language that differentiates between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events. The current definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ is ‘‘any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard; (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.’’ The revised definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ being proposed which eliminates the third criteria reads: ‘‘Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit.’’ 2. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements The EPA proposes to revise the rule’s monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in three ways: (1) Performance test results would be submitted electronically; (2) compliance reports would be submitted semiannually when deviations from applicable standards occur; and (3) parameter monitoring would no longer be required during periods when a nonHAP binder is being used. a. Electronic Reporting 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH does not currently require electronic reporting. Through this action, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, submit electronic copies of required performance test reports through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. Under current requirements, paper test reports are often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic storage of such reports would make data more accessible for review, analyses, and sharing. Electronic reporting also PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 15001 eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a plan 15 to periodically review its regulations to determine if they should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in an effort to make regulations more effective and less burdensome. The plan includes replacing outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. In keeping with this plan and the White House’s Digital Government Strategy,16 in 2013 the EPA issued an agency-wide policy specifying that new regulations will require reports to be electronic to the maximum extent possible.17 By proposing electronic submission of performance test reports for 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH facilities, the EPA is taking steps to implement this policy. The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly interface that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily available, electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant (e.g., kg of particulate emitted per Mg of coal burned). Such factors facilitate the estimation of emissions from various sources of air pollution and are an important tool in developing emissions inventories, which in turn are the basis for numerous efforts, including trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling. Emissions factors are also widely used in regulatory applicability 15 EPA’s Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011. Available at: https:// www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA–HQ– OA–2011–0156–0154. 16 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhite house.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/ digital-government/digital-government.html. 17 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf. E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 15002 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules determinations and in permitting decisions. The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA’s emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions factors would provide more confidence that the factor is of higher quality and representative of the whole industry sector. Additionally, by making the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAArequired technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having performance test reports and air emission data readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time. These data will provide useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and maintained in practice within a source category and across source categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also be used to inform the technology-review process by providing information on improvements to add-on technology and new control technology. Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated air agencies or industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the EPA VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) may be needed in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology and riskbased reviews. We expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports from the EPA Regional offices. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency’s ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased public health and environmental protection. Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA’s electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, and, thus, minimize the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of electronically submitted data and reports. Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because performance test data would be readily-available in standard electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic format facilitates review through the use of software ‘‘search’’ options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA’s electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as long as they have access to the internet). The ability to access and review reports PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 electronically assists air agencies in determining compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and accurately, potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the general public. The proposed electronic reporting of test data is consistent with electronic data trends (e.g., electronic banking and income tax filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is already common practice in many media offices at the EPA. The changes being proposed in this rulemaking are needed to continue the EPA’s transition to electronic reporting. Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI which preclude you from accessing the system and submitting required reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, and the unavailability prevents you from submitting a report by the required date, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 5 business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate timeframe because if the system is down prior to this time, you still have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is back online. However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, we realize that this could greatly impact your ability to submit a required report on time. We will notify you about known outages as far in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI website, and posting on the CDX website so that you can plan accordingly and still meet your reporting deadline. However, if a planned or unplanned outage occurs and you believe that it will affect or it has affected your ability to comply with an electronic reporting requirement, we have provided a process to assert such a claim. In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. If such an event occurs or is still occurring or if there are still lingering effects of the event in the 5 business days prior to a submission deadline, we have provided a process to assert a claim of force majeure. We are providing these potential extensions to protect you from noncompliance in cases where you cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of your control as described above. We are not providing an extension for other instances. You should register for CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance date, in order to make sure that you can complete the identity proofing process prior to the initial compliance date. Additionally, we recommend you start developing reports early, in case any questions arise during the reporting process. b. Frequency of Compliance Reports Section 63.3000(c) of the current rule requires owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to submit compliance reports on a semiannual basis unless there are deviations from emission limits or operating limits. In those instances, the current rule requires that compliance reports be submitted on a quarterly basis. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3000(c) to require that compliance reports be submitted on a semiannual basis in all instances. Reporting on a semiannual basis will adequately provide a check on the operation and maintenance of process, control, and monitoring equipment and identify any problems with complying with rule requirements. c. Parameter Monitoring and Recording During Use of Binder Containing No HAP Section 63.2984 of the current rule requires owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH to maintain the operating parameters established during the most recent performance test. Sections 63.2996 and 63.2998 of the current rule require owners and operators to monitor and record the parameters listed in Table 1 to subpart HHHH. The EPA is proposing that during periods when the binder formulation being used to produce mat 15003 does not contain any HAP (i.e., formaldehyde or any other HAP listed under section 112(b) of the CAA), owners and operators would not be required to monitor or record any of the parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, including control device parameters. For each of these periods, we propose that owners and operators would be required to record the dates and times that production of mat using a non-HAP binder began and ended. To clearly identify these periods when the binder formulation being used to produce mat does not contain any HAP, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, sections 63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 and table 1, and also proposing that a definition of NonHAP binder be added to 40 CFR 63.3004. The new definition of ‘‘NonHAP binder’’ being proposed reads: ‘‘Non-HAP binder means a binder formulation that does not contain any hazardous air pollutants listed on the material safety data sheets of the compounds used in the binder formulation.’’ 3. Technical and Editorial Changes We are also proposing several clarifying revisions to the final rule as described in Table 2 of this preamble. TABLE 2—MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSED CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART HHHH Section of subpart HHHH Description of proposed change 40 CFR 63.2984 ................. • Amend paragraph (a)(4) to clarify compliance with a different operating limit means the operating limit specified in paragraph (a)(1). • Amend paragraph (e) to allow use of a more recent edition of the currently referenced ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,’’ American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, i.e., the appropriate chapters of ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design’’ (27th edition), or an alternate as approved by the Administrator. • Revise text regarding incorporation by reference (IBR) in paragraph (e) by replacing the reference to 40 CFR 63.3003 with, instead, 40 CFR 63.14. • Amend paragraphs (a) and (b) to update a reference. • Re-designate paragraph (c) as paragraph (e) and amend the newly designated paragraph to clarify that EPA Method 320 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A–2) is an acceptable method for measuring the concentration of formaldehyde. • Add new paragraph (c) to clarify that EPA Methods 3 and 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) are acceptable methods for measuring oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations needed to correct formaldehyde concentration measurements to a standard basis. • Add new paragraph (d) to clarify that EPA Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) is an acceptable method for measuring the moisture content of the stack gas. • Amend paragraph (b) to update list of example electronic medium on which records may be kept. • Add paragraph (c) to clarify that any records that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. • Remove text and reserve the section consistent with revisions to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14. 40 CFR 63.2993 ................. 40 CFR 63.2999 ................. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 40 CFR 63.3003 ................. E. What compliance dates are we proposing? The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources and affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before April 6, 2018 must comply with all of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 amendments no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. (The final action is not expected to be a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10)). For existing sources, we are proposing PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 four changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that performance test results be electronically submitted, we are proposing to change the frequency of E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 15004 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules required submissions of compliance reports for facilities with deviations from applicable standards from a quarterly basis to a semiannual basis, we are proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods, and we are proposing to no longer require parameter monitoring during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used to produce mat. Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting and to convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting parameters shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make any necessary adjustments; to adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions such as those proposed here for periods of non-HAP binder use; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation’s revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation’s effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of information from sources in this source category regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 the revised requirements. We note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance date. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after April 6, 2018 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? The EPA estimates that there are seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that are subject to the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP and would be affected by the proposed amendments. The bases of our estimate of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, Wet-Formed Fiberglass: Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation (Modeling File Documentation Memo), which is available in the docket for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. B. What are the air quality impacts? The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that are subject to the NESHAP are approximately 23 tpy. Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. C. What are the cost impacts? The seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that would be subject to the proposed amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, some estimated to have costs and some estimated to have cost savings. Nationwide annual costs associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $200 per year in each of the 3 years following promulgation of amendments. The EPA believes that the seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities which are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the proposed requirements without incurring additional capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs associated PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 with the proposed amendments are related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs. For further information on the requirements being proposed, see section IV of this preamble. For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Cost Impacts of WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review Proposal, and the document, Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which are both available in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts. D. What are the economic impacts? As noted earlier, the nationwide annual costs associated with the proposed requirements are estimated to be $200 per year in each of the 3 years following promulgation of the amendments. The present value of the total cost over these 3 years is approximately $550 in 2016 dollars under a 3-percent discount rate, and $510 in 2016 dollars under a 7-percent discount rate. These costs are not expected to result in business closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. For further information on the economic impacts associated with the requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the Risk and Technology Review: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action. E. What are the benefits? Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if finalized, would result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendment requiring electronic submittal of performance test results will increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. In addition, the proposed amendments reducing parameter monitoring and recording requirements when non-HAP binder is being used to produce mat and reducing frequency of compliance reports will reduce burden for regulated facilities while continuing to protect public health and the environment. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for more information. E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules VI. Request for Comments We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data. We specifically solicit comment on an additional issue under consideration that would reduce regulatory burden for owner/operators of certain drying and curing ovens. We are requesting comment on exempting performance testing requirements for drying and curing ovens that are subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the use of only non-HAP binders. 40 CFR 63.2991 currently requires formaldehyde testing for all drying and curing ovens subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, even if the facility only uses a non-HAP binder. Such an exemption would reduce burden for owners and operators that have switched to using only non-HAP binders without any increase in HAP emissions. Owners and operators of drying and curing ovens that are still permitted to use HAP containing binders would still be required to conduct periodic performance testing even if they are not currently using binders that contain HAP. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 VII. Submitting Data Corrections The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source category. If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information. 2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments). 3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations). 4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2004–0309 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR website at https:// www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ rtrpg.html. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to OMB for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1964.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. We are proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 15005 part 63, subpart HHHH, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; requiring electronic submittal of performance test reports; reducing the frequency of compliance reports to a semiannual basis when there are deviations from applicable standards; and reducing the parameter monitoring and recording requirements during use of binder containing no HAP. We also included review of the amended rule by affected facilities in the updated ICR for this proposed rule. In addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of respondents was reduced from 14 to 7 based on consultation with industry representatives and state/local agencies. Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that produce wetformed fiberglass mat subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH). Estimated number of respondents: Seven. Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual compliance reports. Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 1,470 hours (per year). Of these, 3 hours (per year) is the incremental burden to comply with the proposed rule amendments. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $95,500 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. Of the total, $200 (per year) is the incremental cost to comply with the proposed amendments to the rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 15006 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_ submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than May 7, 2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. 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. There are no small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the document, Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and Technology Review: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category, available in the docket for this action. 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. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 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. None of the seven wetformed fiberglass mat production facilities that have been identified as being affected by this proposed action are owned or operated by tribal governments or located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and C and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action. 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) and 1 CFR part 51 This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards (VCS). The EPA proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While the EPA identified 11 VCS as being potentially applicable as alternatives to EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, the Agency does not propose to use them. Use of these VCS would be impractical because of their lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and/or other important technical and policy considerations. Results of the search are documented in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which is available in the docket for this action. Methods 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A are used to determine the formaldehyde concentrations before and after the control device (e.g., thermal oxidizer). Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A are used the determine the gas flow rate which is used with the concentration of formaldehyde to calculate the mass emission rate. Additional information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ emc/emc-promulgated-test-methods. Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’ and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Procedure,’’ and Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design, 27th Edition, 2010, are compilations of research data and information on design, maintenance, and evaluation of industrial exhaust ventilation systems. They include suggestions for appropriate hood design considerations and aspects for fan design. The Manuals are used by engineers and industrial hygienists as guidance for design and evaluation of industrial ventilation systems. Additional information can be found at https://www.acgih.org. 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, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, available in the docket for this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 19, 2018. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (a) and paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to read as follows: ■ E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. (a) * * * For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or go to https:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ ibr-locations.html. (b) * * * (2) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’ and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design Procedure.’’ IBR approved for §§ 63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart RRR, Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and 63.2984(e). (3) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design, 27th Edition, 2010. IBR approved for §§ 63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart RRR, Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and 63.2984(e). * * * * * Subpart HHHH—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 3. Section 63.2984 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (4), (b), and (e) to read as follows: ■ daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2984 meet? What operating limits must I (a) * * * (1) You must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the average operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall below the temperature established during your performance test and specified in your OMM plan, except during periods when using a non-HAP binder. * * * * * (4) If you use an add-on control device other than a thermal oxidizer or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating limit than the limit specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must obtain approval for the alternative monitoring under § 63.8(f). You must include the approved alternative monitoring and operating limits in the OMM plan specified in § 63.2987. (b) When during a period of normal operation, you detect that an operating parameter deviates from the limit or range established in paragraph (a) of this section, you must initiate corrective actions within 1 hour according to the provisions of your OMM plan. The corrective actions must be completed in an expeditious manner as specified in the OMM plan. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 (e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or other control device to achieve the emission limits in § 63.2983, you must capture and convey the formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven according to the procedures in chapters 3 and 5 of ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice’’ (23rd Edition) or the appropriate chapters of ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design’’ (27th edition) (both incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). In addition, you may use an alternate as approved by the Administrator. ■ 4. Section 63.2985 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 63.2985 When do I have to comply with these standards? * * * * * (b) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 must be in compliance with this subpart at startup or by April 11, 2002, whichever is later. * * * * * (d) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after April 6, 2018 must be in compliance with this subpart at startup or by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever is later. ■ 5. Section 63.2986 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 63.2986 How do I comply with the standards? * * * * * (g) You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limits in § 63.2983 and the operating limits in § 63.2984 at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limits in § 63.2983 and the operating limits in § 63.2984 at all times. (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain any affected source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], at all times, you must operate and maintain any PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 15007 affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan must address the startup, shutdown, and corrective actions taken for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment. A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. ■ 6. Section 63.2992 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read as follows: § 63.2992 test? How do I conduct a performance * * * * * (b) You must conduct the performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7(a) through (d), (e)(2) through (4), and (f) through (h). * * * * * (e) Performance tests must be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests * * * * * ■ 7. Section 63.2993 is amended by: E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 15008 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (e) through (g); ■ c. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d); and ■ d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.2993 What test methods must I use in conducting performance tests? (a) Use EPA Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1) for selecting the sampling port location and the number of sampling ports. (b) Use EPA Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1) for measuring the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas. (c) Use EPA Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2) for measuring oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations needed to correct formaldehyde concentration measurements to a standard basis. (d) Use EPA Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) for measuring the moisture content of the stack gas. (e) Use EPA Method 316, 318, or 320 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for measuring the concentration of formaldehyde. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.2994 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.2994 How do I verify the performance of monitoring equipment? (a) Before conducting the performance test, you must take the steps listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section: (1) Install and calibrate all process equipment, control devices, and monitoring equipment. (2) Develop and implement a continuous monitoring system (CMS) quality control program that includes written procedures for CMS according to § 63.8(d)(1) and (2). You must keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan required under § 63.8(d)(2). (3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the CMS according to § 63.8(e), which specifies the general requirements and VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 requirements for notifications, the sitespecific performance evaluation plan, conduct of the performance evaluation, and reporting of performance evaluation results. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.2996 is revised to read as follows: § 63.2996 What must I monitor? (a) You must monitor the parameters listed in table 1 of this subpart and any other parameters specified in your OMM plan. The parameters must be monitored, at a minimum, at the corresponding frequencies listed in table 1 of this subpart, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) During periods when using a nonHAP binder, you are not required to monitor the parameters in table 1 of this subpart. ■ 10. Section 63.2998 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the introductory text, paragraphs (a) and (c), and paragraph (e) introductory text; ■ b. Revising paragraph (f); ■ c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h) ■ d. Adding new paragraph (g). The revisions read as follows: § 63.2998 What records must I maintain? You must maintain records according to the procedures of § 63.10. You must maintain the records listed in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section. (a) All records required by § 63.10, where applicable. Table 2 of this subpart presents the applicable requirements of the general provisions. * * * * * (c) During periods when the binder formulation being applied contains HAP, records of values of monitored parameters listed in Table 1 of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart. During periods when using non-HAP binder, and that you elect not to monitor the parameters in table 1 of this subpart, you are required to record the dates and times that production of mat using non-HAP binder began and ended. * * * * * (e) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if an operating parameter deviation occurs, you must record: * * * * * (f) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], keep all records specified in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. (g) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], in the event that an affected source fails to meet an applicable standard, including deviations from an emission limit in § 63.2983 or an operating limit in § 63.2984, you must record the number of failures and, for each failure, you must: (1) Record the date, time, and duration of the failure; (2) Describe the cause of the failure; (3) Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions; and (4) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.2986(g)(2), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation and/or the operating parameter to the limit or to within the range specified in the OMM plan, along with dates and times at which corrective actions were initiated and completed. * * * * * ■ 10. Section 63.2999 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.2999 In what form and for how long must I maintain records? * * * * * (b) Your records must be readily available and in a form so they can be easily inspected and reviewed. You can keep the records on paper or an alternative medium, such as microfilm, computer, computer disks, compact disk, digital versatile disk, flash drive, other commonly used electronic storage medium, magnetic tape, or on microfiche. (c) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation. ■ 11. Section 63.3000 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (1), (4), (5), (d), and (e) and adding paragraphs (c)(6), (f), and (g) to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules § 63.3000 What notifications and reports must I submit? daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (c) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual compliance reports according to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section. (1) Dates for submitting reports. Unless the Administrator has agreed to a different schedule for submitting reports under § 63.10(a), you must deliver or postmark each semiannual compliance report no later than 30 days following the end of each semiannual reporting period. The first semiannual reporting period begins on the compliance date for your affected source and ends on June 30 or December 31, whichever date immediately follows your compliance date. Each subsequent semiannual reporting period for which you must submit a semiannual compliance report begins on July 1 or January 1 and ends 6 calendar months later. Before [DATE 1 DAY AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], as required by § 63.10(e)(3), you must begin submitting quarterly compliance reports if you deviate from the emission limits in § 63.2983 or the operating limits in § 63.2984. After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], quarterly compliance reports are not required. * * * * * (4) No deviations. If there were no instances where an affected source failed to meet an applicable standard, including no deviations from the emission limit in § 63.2983 or the operating limits in § 63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must include a statement to that effect. If there were no periods during which the continuous parameter monitoring systems were out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement to that effect. (5) Deviations. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if there was an instance where an affected source failed to meet an applicable standard, including a deviation from the emission limit in § 63.2983 or an operating limit in § 63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must record the number of failures and contain the information in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section: (i) The date, time, and duration of each failure. (ii) The date and time that each continuous parameter monitoring VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous parameter monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). (iv) A list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (v) The date and time that corrective actions were taken, a description of the cause of the failure, and a description of the corrective actions taken. (vi) A summary of the total duration of each failure during the semiannual reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period. (vii) A breakdown of the total duration of the failures during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (viii) A brief description of the process units. (ix) A brief description of the continuous parameter monitoring system. (6) Deviations. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if there was an instance where an affected source failed to meet an applicable standard, including a deviation from the emission limit in § 63.2983 or an operating limit in § 63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must record the number of failures and contain the information in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section: (i) The date, time, and duration of each failure. (ii) The date and time that each continuous parameter monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks. (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous parameter monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in § 63.8(c)(8). (iv) A list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (v) The date and time that corrective actions were taken, a description of the cause of the failure, and a description of the corrective actions taken. (vi) A summary of the total duration of each failure during the semiannual PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 15009 reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period. (vii) A breakdown of the total duration of the failures during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (viii) A brief description of the process units. (ix) A brief description of the continuous parameter monitoring system. (d) Performance test results. You must submit results of each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required by this subpart no later than 60 days after completing the test as specified in § 63.10(d)(2). You must include the values measured during the performance test for the parameters listed in Table 1 of this subpart and the operating limits or ranges to be included in your OMM plan. For the thermal oxidizer temperature, you must include 15-minute averages and the average for the three 1-hour test runs. Beginning no later than [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit the results following the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at the time of the test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method. (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 15010 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, Mail Drop C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (e) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if you have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified § 63.10(d)(5). (f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through the CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a force majeure event is VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:31 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator. ■ 12. Section 63.3003 is removed and reserved. ■ 13. Section 63.3004 is amended by removing the definition for ‘‘Deviation’’ and adding definitions for ‘‘Deviation after,’’ ‘‘Deviation before,’’ ‘‘Non-HAP binder,’’ ‘‘Shutdown,’’ and ‘‘Startup’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 63.3004 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Deviation after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit. Deviation after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. * * * * * Non-HAP binder means a binder formulation that does not contain any hazardous air pollutants listed on the material safety data sheets of the compounds used in the binder formulation. * * * * * Shutdown after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] means the cessation of operation of the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Shutdown ends when fiberglass mat is no longer being dried or cured in the oven and the oven no longer contains any resin infused binder. Startup after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] means the setting in operation of the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Startup begins when resin infused fiberglass mat enters the oven to be dried and cured for the first time or after a shutdown event. * * * * * ■ 14. Table 1 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 15011 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING AND RECORDKEEPING As stated in § 63.2998(c), you must comply with the minimum requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping in the following table: You must monitor these parameters: At this frequency: 1. Thermal oxidizer temperature a ...................... 2. Other process or control device parameters specified in your OMM plan.b 3. Urea-formaldehyde resin solids application rate.d Continuously .................................................... As specified in your OMM plan ....................... 15-minute and 3-hour block averages. As specified in your OMM plan. On each operating day, calculate the average lb/h application rate for each product manufactured during that day. For each lot of resin purchased ....................... The average lb/h value for each product manufactured during the day. 4. Resin free-formaldehyde content d ................. 5. Loss-on-ignition c d .......................................... 6. UF-to-latex ratio in the binder c d .................... 7. Weight of the final mat product per square (lb/roofing square).c d 8. Average nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate (roofing square/h).c d And record for the monitored parameter: Measured at least once per day, for each product manufactured during that day. For each batch of binder prepared the operating day. Each product manufactured during the operating day. For each product manufactured during the operating day. The value for each lot used during the operating day. The value for each product manufactured during the operating day. The value for each batch of binder prepared during the operating day. The value for each product manufactured during the operating day. The average value for each product manufactured during operating day. a Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions. if process modifications or a control device other than a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions. parameters must be monitored and values recorded, but no operating limits apply. d You are not required to monitor or record these parameters during periods when using a non-HAP binder. If you elect to not monitor these parameters during these periods, you must record the dates and times that production of mat using the non-HAP binder began and ended. b ‘‘Required c These 15. Table 2 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows: ■ TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART HHHH As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH § 63.1(a)(1)–(4) .......... § 63.1(a)(5) ................ § 63.1(a)(6)–(8) .......... § 63.1(a)(9) ................ § 63.1(a)(10)–(14) ...... § 63.1(b) ..................... § 63.1(c)(1) ................. General Applicability ............................ .............................................................. Yes. .............................................................. Yes. Initial Applicability Determination ........ Applicability After Standard Established. .............................................................. .............................................................. Yes. .............................................................. Applicability of Permit Program ........... Definitions ............................................ Units and Abbreviations ...................... Prohibited Activities ............................. .............................................................. Yes. Circumvention/Severability .................. Construction/Reconstruction ............... Existing/Constructed/Reconstruction ... .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review. Compliance with Standards and Maintenance—Applicability. New and Reconstructed Sources– Dates. .............................................................. Yes. Existing Sources Dates ....................... Yes. No ........................................................ [Reserved]. No ........................................................ [Reserved]. § 63.1(c)(2) ................. § 63.1(c)(3) ................. § 63.1(c)(4)–(5) .......... § 63.1(d) ..................... § 63.1(e) ..................... § 63.2 ......................... § 63.3 ......................... § 63.4(a)(1)–(3) .......... § 63.4(a)(4) ................ § 63.4(a)(5) ................ § 63.4(b)–(c) ............... § 63.5(a) ..................... § 63.5(b)(1) ................ § 63.5(b)(2) ................ § 63.5(b)(3)–(6) .......... § 63.5(c) ..................... § 63.5(d) ..................... daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.5(e) ..................... § 63.5(f) ...................... § 63.6(a) ..................... § 63.6(b)(1)–(5) .......... § 63.6(b)(6) ................ § 63.6(b)(7) ................ § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) .......... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:56 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Explanation Yes. Yes. Yes ...................................................... No ........................................................ Some plants may be area sources. [Reserved]. No ........................................................ Yes. Yes ...................................................... Yes. Yes. No ........................................................ [Reserved]. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ........................................................ Yes. No ........................................................ Yes. Additional definitions in § 63.3004. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ........................................................ [Reserved]. Yes. ..................................................... § 63.2985 specifies dates. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 15012 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART HHHH—Continued As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) .......... § 63.6(c)(5) ................. § 63.6(d) ..................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............. .............................................................. Yes. .............................................................. General Duty to Minimize Emissions .. No ........................................................ [Reserved]. No ........................................................ Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes ...................................................... [Reserved]. See § 63.2986(g) for general duty requirement. ......................................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............ Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAP. ......................................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............ § 63.6(e)(2) ................ § 63.6(e)(3) ................ Operation and Maintenance Requirements. .............................................................. SSM Plan Requirements ..................... .............................................................. § 63.6(f)(1) ................. § 63.6(f)(2) and (3) ..... § 63.7(b) ..................... § 63.7(c) ..................... § 63.7(d) ..................... § 63.7(e)(1) ................ SSM Exemption ................................... Compliance with Non-Opacity Emission Standards. Alternative Non-Opacity Emission Standard. Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emissions Standards. Extension of Compliance .................... .............................................................. .............................................................. Exemption from Compliance ............... Performance Test Requirements—Applicability and Dates. Notification of Performance Test ......... Quality Assurance Program/Test Plan Testing Facilities .................................. Performance Testing ........................... § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) .......... Conduct of Tests ................................. § 63.7(f) ...................... § 63.7(g) ..................... § 63.7(h) ..................... § 63.8(a)(1)–(2) .......... Alternative Test Method ...................... Data Analysis ...................................... Waiver of Tests ................................... Monitoring Requirements—Applicability. .............................................................. .............................................................. Conduct of Monitoring ......................... General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. § 63.6(g) ..................... § 63.6(h) ..................... § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ......... § 63.6(i)(15) ................ § 63.6(i)(16) ................ § 63.6(j) ...................... § 63.7(a) ..................... daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 63.8(a)(3) ................ § 63.8(a)(4) ................ § 63.8(b) ..................... § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ............. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............ VerDate Sep<11>2014 Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Operation and Maintenance. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS. 21:56 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 No ........................................................ Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No. Yes. Explanation §§ 63.2984 and 63.2987 specify additional requirements. [Reserved]. Yes ...................................................... EPA retains approval authority. No ........................................................ Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. Yes. No ........................................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes ...................................................... Yes ...................................................... Yes. Yes. Yes. No ........................................................ Yes. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. [Reserved]. See § 63.2992(c). § 63.2991–63.2994 specify additional requirements. EPA retains approval authority. [Reserved]. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 15013 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART HHHH—Continued As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) .......... § 63.8(d)(1) and (2) .... § 63.8(d)(3) ................ No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. .............................................................. Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Procedures. .............................................................. Quality Control ..................................... Written Procedures for CMS ............... § 63.8(e) ..................... § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ........... § 63.8(f)(6) ................. CMS Performance Evaluation ............. Alternative Monitoring Method ............ Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test Yes. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes ...................................................... No ........................................................ § 63.8(g)(1) ................ § 63.8(g)(2) ................ Data Reduction .................................... Data Reduction .................................... Yes. No ........................................................ § 63.8(g)(3)–(5) .......... § 63.9(a) ..................... Yes. Yes. § 63.9(g)(1) ................ § 63.9(g)(2)–(3) .......... Data Reduction .................................... Notification Requirements—Applicability. Initial Notifications ............................... Request for Compliance Extension ..... New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements. Notification of Performance Test ......... Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test. Additional CMS Notifications ............... .............................................................. Yes. No ........................................................ § 63.9(h)(1)–(3) .......... Notification of Compliance Status ....... Yes ...................................................... § 63.9(h)(4) ................ § 63.9(h)(5)–(6) .......... § 63.9(i) ...................... § 63.9(j) ...................... § 63.10(a) ................... .............................................................. .............................................................. Adjustment of Deadlines ..................... Change in Previous Information .......... Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability. General Recordkeeping Requirements No ........................................................ Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. § 63.8(c)(2)–(4) .......... § 63.8(c)(5) ................. § 63.9(b) ..................... § 63.9(c) ..................... § 63.9(d) ..................... § 63.9(e) ..................... § 63.9(f) ...................... § 63.10(b)(1) .............. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ........... § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) .......... daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Explanation Maintenance Records ......................... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ......... § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions Other CMS Requirements ................... 21:56 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. See § 63.2994(a). EPA retains approval authority. Subpart HHHH does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) Subpart HHHH does not require the use of CEMS or COMS. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ........................................................ Yes ...................................................... Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER Standard. PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .......... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v). VerDate Sep<11>2014 Yes. No ........................................................ Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. Subpart HHHH does not require the use of COMS or CEMS. § 63.3000(b) specifies additional requirements. [Reserved]. § 63.2998 includes additional requirements. See § 63.2998(e) for recordkeeping requirements for an affected source that fails to meet an applicable standard. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. Yes. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2 15014 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART HHHH—Continued As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH § 63.10(b)(3) .............. Recordkeeping requirement for applicability determinations. § 63.10(c)(1) ............... § 63.10(c)(2)–(4) ........ § 63.10(c)(5)–(8) ........ § 63.10(c)(9) ............... § 63.10(c)(10)–(14) .... § 63.10(c)(15) ............. Additional CMS Recordkeeping .......... .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. Use of SSM Plan ................................. § 63.10(d)(1) .............. General Reporting Requirements ....... Yes after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes. No ........................................................ Yes. No ........................................................ Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. Yes ...................................................... § 63.10(d)(2) .............. Performance Test Results ................... Yes ...................................................... § 63.10(d)(3) .............. No ........................................................ § 63.10(d)(5) .............. Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. Progress Reports Under Extension of Compliance. SSM Reports ....................................... § 63.10(e)(1) .............. Additional CMS Reports—General ..... § 63.10(e)(2) .............. Reporting results of CMS performance evaluations. Excess Emission/CMS Performance Reports. COMS Data Reports ........................... § 63.10(d)(4) .............. § 63.10(e)(3) .............. § 63.10(e)(4) .............. § 63.10(f) .................... § 63.11 ....................... § 63.12 § 63.13 § 63.14 § 63.15 ....................... ....................... ....................... ....................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ....... Control Device Requirements—Applicability. State Authority and Delegations ......... Addresses ............................................ Incorporation by Reference ................. Availability of Information/Confidentiality. Explanation [Reserved]. [Reserved]. § 63.3000 includes additional requirements. § 63.3000 includes additional requirements. Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. Yes. Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. No ........................................................ See § 63.3000(c) for malfunction reporting requirements. Subpart HHHH CEMS. daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 require Yes. No ........................................................ Yes ...................................................... No ........................................................ Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards. EPA retains approval authority. Facilities subject to subpart HHHH do not use flares as control devices. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 21:56 Apr 05, 2018 not Yes. [FR Doc. 2018–06541 Filed 4–5–18; 8:45 am] VerDate Sep<11>2014 does Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM 06APP2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14984-15014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06541]



[[Page 14983]]

Vol. 83

Friday,

No. 67

April 6, 2018

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-Formed 
Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 14984]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309; FRL-9975-99-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT47


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production to address the 
results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA 
is required to conduct in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be 
acceptable from this source category, determined that the current 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
and identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology 
review to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, we are 
proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these 
analyses. However, the EPA is proposing to revise provisions pertaining 
to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM); add requirements for electronic submittal of performance test 
results; revise certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements; and make other miscellaneous technical and editorial 
changes. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions 
in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they 
would result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2018. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before May 7, 2018.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by April 11, 2018, 
then we will hold a public hearing on April 23, 2018 at the location 
described in the ADDRESSES section. The last day to pre-register in 
advance to speak at the public hearing will be April 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES:  Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. (See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for detail about how EPA treats submitted comments.) 
Regulations.gov is our preferred method of receiving comments. However, 
other submission methods are accepted. To ship or send mail via the 
United States Postal Service, use the following address: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0309, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460. Use the following Docket Center address if you 
are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier: 
EPA Docket Center, EPA William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, 
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery 
verification signatures will be available only during regular business 
hours.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held 
at EPA Headquarters, EPA WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is requested, then we 
will provide details about the public hearing on our website at: 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wet-formed-fiberglass-mat-production-national-emission-standards. The EPA does not 
intend to publish another document in the Federal Register announcing 
any updates on the request for a public hearing. Please contact 
Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or by email at [email protected] to 
request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing, 
or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for instructions on registering and attending 
a public hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mary Johnson, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(Mail Code D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5025; fax number: (919) 541-4991; 
and email address: [email protected] or Christian Fellner, Sector 
Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-01), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-4003; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: 
[email protected].
    For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, 
contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (Mail Code 
C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470; fax number: (919) 541-0840; 
and email address: [email protected].
    For information about the applicability of the national emissions 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, 
contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E-19J), 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: 
(312) 353-6266; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public hearing. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all 
speakers who arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S. 
government facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared 
to show a current, valid state- or federal-approved picture 
identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the 
meeting room. An expired form of identification will not be permitted. 
Please note that the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, 
established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your 
driver's license is issued by a noncompliant state, you must present an 
additional form of identification to enter a federal facility. 
Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal 
employee badge, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military 
identification cards. Additional information on the Real ID Act is 
available at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-frequently-asked-questions. In 
addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal 
belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be 
required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large 
signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside 
of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal 
property for security reasons.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although

[[Page 14985]]

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on 
the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 
EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0309. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed in section 
I.C of this preamble.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other 
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not 
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include 
special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects 
or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, 
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    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:

    AEGL acute exposure guideline level
    AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
    ARMA Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association
    ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    BACT best available control technology
    BBDR biologically based dose response
    CAA Clean Air Act
    CalEPA California EPA
    CBI Confidential Business Information
    CDX Central Data Exchange
    CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
    CFR Code of Federal Regulations
    CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
    ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
    EPA Environmental Protection Agency
    ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
    ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
    HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
    HCl hydrochloric acid
    HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
    HF hydrogen fluoride
    HI hazard index
    HQ hazard quotient
    IBR incorporation by reference
    ICR information collection request
    IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
    kg/Mg kilograms per megagram
    km kilometer
    LAER lowest achievable emission rate
    lb/ton pounds per ton
    MACT maximum achievable control technology
    mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
    MIR maximum individual risk
    NAICS North American Industry Classification System
    NAS National Academy of Sciences
    NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
    NEI National Emissions Inventory
    NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
    NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
    NSR New Source Review
    NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    OMB Office of Management and Budget
    PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
    PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
    QA quality assurance
    RACT reasonably available control technology
    RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
    REL reference exposure level
    RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
    RfC reference concentration
    RTR residual risk and technology review
    SAB Science Advisory Board
    SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
    TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
    tpy tons per year
    UF uncertainty factor
    [micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
    UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    URE unit risk estimate
    VCS voluntary consensus standards

    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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
    C. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    D. What other relevant background information and data are 
available?
III. Analytical Procedures
    A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
    B. How do we perform the technology review?
    C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source 
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, 
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
    C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    D. What other actions are we proposing?
    E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?

[[Page 14986]]

VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation 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) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and the associated 
regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this 
proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is 
likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be 
directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and 
tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed 
action. The Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category was 
added to the list of categories of major sources of HAP published under 
section 112(c) of the CAA in an action that concurrently promulgated 
NESHAP for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category (67 
FR 17824, April 11, 2002). As defined in that action, in wet-formed 
fiberglass mat production, glass fibers are bonded with an organic 
resin. The mat is formed as the resin is dried and cured in heated 
ovens.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category                   NESHAP          NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat        Wet-Formed Fiberglass            327212
 Production.                      Mat Production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wet-formed-fiberglass-mat-production-national-emission-standards. Following 
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal 
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this 
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this 
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309).

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

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk 
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or 
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 
one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed 
as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. If 
you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of 
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards 
for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first 
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second 
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional 
standards are needed to further address any remaining risk associated 
with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the 
``residual risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the 
CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 
every 8 years to determine if there are ``developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to 
incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as 
the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a 
single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and 
technology review.'' The discussion that follows identifies the most 
relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the 
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more 
comprehensive discussion appears in the document, CAA Section 112 Risk 
and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, 
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) 
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major 
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different 
requirements for major source standards and area source standards. 
``Major

[[Page 14987]]

sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination 
of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major sources, CAA 
section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect 
the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as 
MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum 
control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' The EPA 
must also consider control options that are more stringent than the 
floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to 
as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA 
section 112(h), EPA may set work practice standards where it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For 
area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set 
standards based on generally available control technologies or 
management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and 
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA 
section 112(f). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to 
determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether 
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this 
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources 
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for 
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's 
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions 
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene 
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery 
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA 
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use 
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently 
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC 
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
    The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to 
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines 
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\1\ of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54 
FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must 
determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an 
acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the 
approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an 
ample margin of safety ``in consideration of all health information, 
including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately [1-in-1 million], as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must 
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is 
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as 
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years. In 
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the 
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the 
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    The NESHAP for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source 
category were promulgated on April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17824), in an action 
that also added the source category to the list of categories of major 
sources of HAP published under section 112(c) of the CAA and to the 
source category schedule for NESHAP. The NESHAP are codified at 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHH. Wet-formed fiberglass mat is used as a substrate 
for multiple roofing products, as reinforcement for various plastic, 
cement, and gypsum products, and in miscellaneous specialty products. 
The fiberglass mat is made of glass fibers that have been bonded with a 
formaldehyde-based resin. Methanol is also present in some, but not 
all, resins used to produce wet-formed fiberglass mat. In a typical 
wet-formed fiberglass mat production line, glass fibers are mixed with 
water and emulsifiers in large mixing vats to form a slurry of fibers 
and water. The glass fiber slurry is then pumped to a mat forming 
machine, where it is dispensed in a uniform curtain over a moving 
screen belt. The mat is then carried beneath a binder saturator, where 
binder solution is uniformly applied onto the surface of the mat. This 
resin-binder application process includes the screen passing over a 
vacuum which draws away the excess binder solution for recycling. The 
mat of fibers and binder then passes into drying and curing ovens that 
use heated air to carry away excess moisture and harden (i.e., cure) 
the binder. Upon exiting the ovens, the mat is cooled, trimmed, wound, 
and packaged to product specifications. The primary HAP emitted during 
production of wet-formed fiberglass mat are formaldehyde, which is 
classified as a known, probable, or possible carcinogen, and methanol. 
We are aware of seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities 
that are subject to the NESHAP. Five of the affected facilities have 
single mat lines and two of the affected facilities have two mat lines.
    The affected source is each wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and 
curing oven. The NESHAP regulates emissions of HAP through emission 
standards for formaldehyde, which is also used as a surrogate for total 
HAP emissions. Facilities subject to the NESHAP must meet either a mass 
emission limit or percentage reduction requirement for each drying and 
curing oven. The emission standards are the same for new and existing 
drying and curing ovens. The emission limits for the exhaust from

[[Page 14988]]

new and existing drying and curing ovens are (1) a maximum formaldehyde 
emission rate of 0.03 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) of wet-formed 
fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of wet-formed 
fiberglass mat produced) or (2) a minimum of 96-percent destruction 
efficiency of formaldehyde. Thermal oxidizers or similar controls 
(e.g., regenerative thermal oxidizer, regenerative catalytic oxidizer) 
are used by facilities subject to the NESHAP to control their drying 
and curing oven exhausts.

C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    The EPA used several means to collect the information necessary to 
conduct the residual risk assessment and technology review for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category. To confirm whether 
facilities identified as potentially subject to the NESHAP were in fact 
subject to the standards, we requested air permits and/or performance 
test data from various state and local agencies. After developing our 
final list of affected facilities, the status of each facility was 
confirmed in consultation with the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers 
Association (ARMA) and ARMA-member companies. The EPA had discussions 
with the four companies that own one or more of the affected facilities 
regarding each facility's production process and emission sources, 
available emissions test data and emissions estimates, measures used to 
control emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. The 
facility-specific information from state and local agencies and 
companies with affected facilities provided support for this action's 
risk and technology reviews.

D. What other relevant background information and data are available?

    The EPA used multiple sources of information to support this 
proposed action. Before developing the final list of affected 
facilities described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA's 
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database was used as a 
tool to identify potentially affected facilities with wet-formed 
fiberglass mat production operations that are subject to the NESHAP. 
The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement 
information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide.
    The 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database provided 
facility-specific data and MACT category data that were used to 
supplement the performance test data in developing the modeling file 
for the risk review. The NEI is a database that contains information 
about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and 
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions 
from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this 
information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3 
years. The NEI includes information necessary for conducting risk 
modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual 
emission points at facilities and the related emissions release 
parameters.
    In conducting the technology review, we examined information in the 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse 
(RBLC) to identify technologies in use and determine if there have been 
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. The RBLC 
is a database that contains case-specific information of air pollution 
technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air 
pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review 
(NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a 
modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an 
NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing 
of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case 
determinations for NSR permits. The EPA also reviewed other information 
sources to determine if there have been developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat 
Production source category. We reviewed regulatory actions for emission 
sources similar to mat drying and curing ovens and conducted a review 
of literature published by industry organizations, technical journals, 
and government organizations.

III. Analytical Procedures

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this 
proposal.

A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?

    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene 
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not 
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene 
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to 
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the 
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of 
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046, 
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of 
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors 
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh 
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk 
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP 
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index 
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP 
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment 
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the 
potential for adverse environmental effects. The scope of EPA's risk 
analysis is consistent with EPA's response to comment on our policy 
under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a 
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where 
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential 
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse 
chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for 
HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system.

``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of 
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health 
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, 
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be 
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the 
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an 
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to 
assess

[[Page 14989]]

available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent 
behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular 
measure of public health risk from the EPA's consideration with 
respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly 
permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which 
the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
determining what will `protect the public health'.''

See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only 
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The 
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10 
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become 
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be 
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making 
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a 
particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the 
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other 
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the 
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP 
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can 
be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly 
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at 
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various 
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our 
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
    The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information 
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not 
attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with 
emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category 
under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, 
persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in 
the vicinity of the sources in the category.
    The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize 
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing 
noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to 
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the 
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a 
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in 
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other 
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to 
result in increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May 
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA's responses to this and all other key 
recommendations of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment 
methodologies (which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memorandum to this rulemaking 
docket from David Guinnup titled EPA's Actions in Response to the 
Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment 
Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating 
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those 
reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide 
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as 
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures 
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same 
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative 
pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the 
RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from 
all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens 
affecting the same target organ system.
    Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources 
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. Because of the contribution to total HAP 
risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in 
depth during this RTR review, such estimates of total HAP risks would 
have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source 
category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative 
assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments 
too unreliable.

B. How do we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we 
identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether 
it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the 
technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated 
costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts, and we 
also consider the emission reductions. In addition, we consider the 
appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting 
existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following 
to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions 
reduction;
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards;
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the original MACT 
standards; and
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost 
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA 
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control 
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed 
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in 
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to 
consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various 
industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being 
reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or 
technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify 
any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these 
efforts

[[Page 14990]]

that could be applied to emission sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass 
Mat Production source category, specifically drying and curing ovens, 
as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications 
associated with the use of these technologies. Additionally, during 
discussions with affected facilities, we asked about developments in 
practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed 
information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting 
agency databases and industry-supported databases.

C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source category?

    The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the 
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the 
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to 
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The 
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks 
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 
the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections 
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and 
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this action contains the 
following document which provides more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the 
February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods 
used to assess risks (as described in the seven primary steps below) 
are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA's Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 and described in their peer review report 
issued in 2010; \4\ they are also consistent with the key 
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 
Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions 
release characteristics?
    Data for nine wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines at seven 
facilities were used to create the RTR emissions dataset as described 
in sections II.C and II.D of this preamble. The emission sources 
included in the RTR emissions dataset include drying and curing ovens, 
which are the primary HAP emission sources at wet-formed fiberglass mat 
production facilities and currently regulated by the NESHAP. The RTR 
emissions dataset also includes emissions from the binder application 
vacuum exhaust which is the emission release point for the resin-binder 
application process. As stated in section II.B of this preamble, the 
primary HAP emitted are formaldehyde and methanol.
    Actual emissions estimates for drying and curing oven exhaust and 
binder application vacuum exhaust at the seven affected facilities were 
based on stack test data, NEI data, and engineering estimates. For 
drying and curing oven exhaust, actual formaldehyde emissions were 
based on emissions data from the most recent stack test. For the 
facilities using binders containing methanol in addition to 
formaldehyde, actual methanol emissions from the drying and curing oven 
exhaust were estimated by adjusting each drying and curing oven's 
actual formaldehyde emissions estimate based on the ratio of methanol 
to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for each oven. For 
binder application vacuum exhaust, actual formaldehyde emissions and 
actual methanol emissions at facilities using binders containing 
methanol were based on stack test emissions data in the limited 
instances where available. Where formaldehyde data were unavailable, 
actual formaldehyde emissions were estimated using a factor based on 
data from one affected facility that tested both the uncontrolled 
emissions from the drying and curing oven and the emissions from the 
binder application vacuum exhaust. Where methanol data were 
unavailable, actual methanol emissions from the binder application 
vacuum exhaust were estimated by adjusting the actual formaldehyde 
emissions estimate for the binder application vacuum exhaust based on 
the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 
NEI for the oven associated with each binder application process.
    For each emission release point (i.e., drying and curing oven 
exhaust and binder application vacuum exhaust), emissions release 
characteristic data such as emission release height, diameter, 
temperature, velocity, flow rate, and locational latitude/longitude 
coordinates were identified. For drying and curing ovens, the emission 
release point is an exhaust stack. For the resin-binder application 
process, the emission release point is the location of the binder 
application vacuum exhaust, which is most commonly routed to one or 
more roof vents. With one exception, the binder application vacuum 
exhaust release points were modeled as stacks. The one process that 
exhausts to a louvered sidewall was modeled as a fugitive release. 
Parameters for the emission release points were primarily obtained from 
performance tests, the 2014 NEI database, air permits, and information 
collected in consultation with each facility. Default parameter values 
based on MACT source category 2014 NEI information were used for the 
binder application vacuum exhaust when site-specific information was 
not available.
    The EPA conducted a quality assurance (QA) check of source 
locations, emission release characteristics, and annual emissions 
estimates. In addition, each company had the opportunity to review the 
information regarding their sources and provide updated source data. 
The revisions we received and incorporated into the modeling file 
regarded emission release point details (e.g., number of emission 
release points, release height and diameter, latitude/longitude 
coordinates).
    Additional details on the data and methods used to develop actual 
emissions estimates for the risk modeling, including EPA's QA review, 
are provided in the memorandum, Wet-Formed Fiberglass: Residual Risk 
Modeling File Documentation (Modeling File Documentation Memo), which 
is available in the docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
    The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include 
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT 
standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted under the MACT 
standards is referred to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. We 
discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the 
final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and 
in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, 
June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In 
those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable 
level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum 
level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission 
standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual 
emissions, where such data are available, in both

[[Page 14991]]

steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP 
approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.)
    MACT-allowable emissions estimates were based on the level of 
control required by the Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP. 
For drying and curing ovens, 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH requires a 
96-percent destruction efficiency for formaldehyde. The MACT-allowable 
formaldehyde emissions for drying and curing oven exhaust were 
calculated based on the actual formaldehyde emissions levels adjusted 
to reflect 96 percent control, which is the minimum percent destruction 
efficiency for formaldehyde allowed under the NESHAP. MACT-allowable 
methanol emissions from drying and curing oven exhaust were estimated 
by adjusting each drying and curing oven's MACT-allowable formaldehyde 
emissions estimate based on the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde 
emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for each oven. For binder 
application vacuum exhaust, which has no control requirements under the 
NESHAP, the MACT-allowable formaldehyde and methanol emissions were 
assumed equal to the actual emissions estimates with the exception of 
one facility where the binder application vacuum exhaust is combined 
with the drying and curing oven exhaust. The Modeling File 
Documentation Memo, available in the docket for this action, contains 
additional information on the development of estimated MACT-allowable 
emissions for the risk modeling.
3. How did we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation 
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks?
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3). The HEM-3 
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting 
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient 
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to 
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks 
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 
information.
a. Dispersion Modeling
    The air dispersion model, AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one 
of the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant 
concentrations from industrial facilities.\5\ To perform the dispersion 
modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on 
three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, 
which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year 
(2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 
meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United 
States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau 
census block \6\ internal point locations and populations provides the 
basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, 
for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and 
controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion 
calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response 
values is used to estimate health risks. These dose-response values are 
the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP. They are available at 
https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants and are discussed in 
more detail later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \6\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Cancer
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used 
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP 
emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source 
category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid 
were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We 
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with 
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per 
year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at 
the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks were 
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the 
ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper 
bound estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer 
over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the 
pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we 
generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to 
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using 
California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, 
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a 
manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer 
review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-
response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if 
appropriate.
    In 2004, the EPA determined that the Chemical Industry Institute of 
Toxicology (CIIT) cancer dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 x 
10-9 per milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m\3\)) was based on better 
science than the 1991 IRIS dose-response value (1.3 x 10-5 per mg/
m\3\), and we switched from using the IRIS value to the CIIT value in 
risk assessments supporting regulatory actions. Based on subsequent 
published research, however, the EPA changed its determination 
regarding the CIIT model, and, in 2010, the EPA returned to using the 
1991 IRIS value. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed its 
review of the EPA's draft assessment in April of 2011 (https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordid=13142), and the EPA has been working 
on revising the formaldehyde assessment. The EPA will follow the NAS 
Report recommendations and will present results obtained by 
implementing the biologically based dose response (BBDR) model for 
formaldehyde. The EPA will compare these estimates with those currently 
presented in the External Review draft of the assessment and will 
discuss their strengths and weaknesses. As recommended by the NAS 
committee, appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses will be an 
integral component of implementing the BBDR model. The draft IRIS 
assessment will be revised in response to the NAS peer review and 
public comments and the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS 
database. In the interim, we will present findings using the 1991 IRIS 
value as a primary estimate and may also consider other information as 
the science evolves. To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer 
risks associated with emissions from the facilities in the source 
category, EPA summed the risks for each of the

[[Page 14992]]

carcinogenic HAP \7\ emitted by the modeled sources. Cancer incidence 
and the distribution of individual cancer risks for the population 
within 50 km of the sources were also estimated for the source category 
by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with 
both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 
September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, 
including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA classifies carcinogens as: Carcinogenic to humans, 
likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of 
carcinogenic potential. These classifications also coincide with the 
terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible 
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the 
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document, 
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of 
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002) was published as a supplement 
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing 
the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative 
cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in 
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment 
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects 
Other Than Cancer
    To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific 
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is 
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ 
for each of the HAP that affects a common TOSHI. The HQ is the 
estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response 
value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The 
preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary), defined as ``an estimate 
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 
continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including 
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk 
of deleterious effects during a lifetime.'' In cases where an RfC from 
the EPA's IRIS database is not available or where the EPA determines 
that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic 
noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following 
prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly 
to EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); 
(2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a 
scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in 
a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer 
review process similar to that used by the EPA.
d. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other 
Than Cancer
    For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response 
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks 
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes 
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and 
exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,\8\ worst-case 
dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under 
section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to 
assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates 
of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual 
annual emissions rates by a default factor (usually 10) to account 
for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support 
of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in 
Appendix 5 of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission 
Rates Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. Both are available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use 
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute 
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning 
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to 
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the 
estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP 
for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates 
acute HQs.
    An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below 
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 
exposure duration.'' \9\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive, 
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical 
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most 
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of 
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to 
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not 
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent 
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to 
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\10\ They are 
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\ 
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 
exposure.'' Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure 
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the 
airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams 
per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the 
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or 
an impaired ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots 
Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in Air 
Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne 
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
    \10\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing 
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 
National Advisory Committee/AEGL Committee ended in October 2011, 
but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with 
the National Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).

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

[[Page 14993]]

    ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \11\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum 
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing 
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving 
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is 
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one 
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious 
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability 
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American 
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than 
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are 
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding 
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from 
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we 
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
    For this source category, hourly emissions data were used to 
estimate maximum hourly emissions. In general, emissions used to assess 
the potential health risks due to acute exposure were estimated using 
the same approach used to develop actual emissions estimates described 
in section III.C.1 of this preamble, except that emissions used to 
estimate acute exposure were based on maximum hourly emission rates 
reported during stack tests. For drying and curing oven exhaust, 
formaldehyde emissions were based on maximum hourly emissions data, 
considering all test runs from available stack tests. For the 
facilities using binders containing methanol, methanol emissions from 
the drying and curing oven exhaust were estimated by adjusting each 
drying and curing oven's formaldehyde emissions estimate based on the 
ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI 
for each oven. For binder application vacuum exhaust, formaldehyde 
emissions and methanol emissions at facilities using binders containing 
methanol were based on maximum hourly emissions data from stack tests 
in the limited instances where available. Where formaldehyde data were 
unavailable, formaldehyde emissions were estimated using a factor based 
on one facility's uncontrolled emissions from its drying and curing 
oven and emissions from its binder application vacuum exhaust. Where 
methanol data were unavailable, methanol emissions were estimated by 
adjusting the formaldehyde emissions estimate for the binder 
application vacuum exhaust based on the ratio of methanol to 
formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for the oven associated 
with each binder application vacuum exhaust.
    A further discussion of the development of emissions used to 
estimate acute exposure for the risk modeling can be found in the risk 
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat 
Production Source Category in Support of the February 2018 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
    In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts 
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to 
1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening 
assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In 
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we 
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined 
estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern.
4. How did we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening 
assessment?
    The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the 
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via 
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined 
whether any sources in the source category emitted any HAP known to be 
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), as 
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 
1, Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
    For the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, we 
did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify 
PB-HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was 
conducted for this source category.
5. How did we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological 
Benchmarks
    The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for adverse environmental effects as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.''
    The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as 
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two 
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic 
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic 
matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead 
compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are 
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental 
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The 
acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-documented 
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four 
exposure media: terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes 
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and 
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological 
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and 
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and 
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological 
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
    An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has 
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each 
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks 
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological 
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable

[[Page 14994]]

effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-
adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were 
available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all 
of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether 
ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be 
considered significant and widespread.
    For further information on how the environmental risk screening 
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics 
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological 
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category 
in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed 
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
    For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first 
determined whether any facilities in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat 
Production source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For 
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, we did not 
identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP included in 
the screen. Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no 
further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted.
6. How did we conduct facility-wide assessments?
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP 
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
    For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment 
using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the 
NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-
category'' data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset 
from that used for the source category assessments described in this 
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are 
emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of 
each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category 
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we 
made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and 
these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the 
portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source 
category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the 
facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and 
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source 
category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed 
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and 
Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, available through the 
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the 
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the 
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although 
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are 
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the 
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows 
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute 
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our 
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of 
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the 
Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full 
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be 
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health 
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/
quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary 
depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are 
incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete 
the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other 
factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally 
are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term 
fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to 
year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects 
screening assessment were based on maximum hourly emission rates and 
emission adjustment factors, which are intended to account for emission 
fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration 
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended 
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate 
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to 
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the 
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not 
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other 
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts 
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select 
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels 
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the 
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient 
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in 
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP 
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset 
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to 
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in 
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
    Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant 
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate 
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the 
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our 
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each 
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor 
exposures. For

[[Page 14995]]

most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when 
looking at the maximum individual risks or the incidence, but the shape 
of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor 
exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time 
indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles. 
For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with 
respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial 
imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent 
the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations 
where the population of a block is not well represented by a single 
location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively, 
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a 
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that 
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the 
primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, 
as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default 
options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the 
contrary, should be health protective'' (EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines, 
pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the 
next paragraphs.
    Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been 
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That 
is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of a 
quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence 
limit).\12\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as 
zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\13\ 
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic 
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To 
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers uncertainty, 
variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to 
derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
    \13\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in 
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to 
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often 
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations 
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all 
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care 
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of 
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values 
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of 
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be 
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
    Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks 
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a 
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of 
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment 
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but 
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had 
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels 
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used 
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk 
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and 
widespread.
    For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol 
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value 
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly, 
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl 
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also 
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds 
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA 
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans 
at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening 
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak 
emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological 
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. 
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these 
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption 
that a person is located at this point during this same time period. 
For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case 
actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at 
the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and 
worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based 
on actual emissions, show the cancer MIR posed by the seven facilities 
is less than 1-in-1 million, with formaldehyde as the major contributor 
to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source 
category is 0.0003 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in 
every 3,000 years. No people were estimated to have cancer risks above 
1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the seven facilities in this 
source category. The maximum chronic noncancer HI value for the source 
category could be up to 0.006 (respiratory) driven by emissions of 
formaldehyde. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels above 1.
    Risk results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-
allowable emissions indicate that the cancer MIR could be as high as 1-
in-1 million with formaldehyde emissions driving the risks, and that 
the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be as high as 0.009 at 
the MACT-allowable

[[Page 14996]]

emissions level with formaldehyde emissions driving the TOSHI. The 
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category considering 
allowable emissions is expected to be about 0.0009 excess cancer cases 
per year or 1 excess case in every 1,000 years. Based on allowable 
emission rates, no people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-
in-1 million.
2. Acute Risk Results
    Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP that has an 
acute dose-response value (formaldehyde and methanol). Based on actual 
emissions, the highest screening acute HQ value was 0.6 (based on the 
acute REL for formaldehyde). Since none of the screening HQ were 
greater than 1, further refinement of the estimates was not warranted.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
    No PB-HAP were emitted from this source category; therefore, a 
multipathway assessment was not warranted.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
    We did not identify any PB-HAP or acid gas emissions from this 
source category. We are unaware of any adverse environmental effect 
caused by emissions of HAP that are emitted by the source category. 
Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result 
of HAP emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
    The results of the facility-wide (both MACT and non-MACT sources) 
assessment indicate that four of the seven facilities included in the 
analysis have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than 1-in-1 million. 
The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 6-in-1 million, mainly driven 
by formaldehyde emissions from non-MACT sources. The total estimated 
cancer incidence from the seven facilities is 0.001 excess cancer cases 
per year, or one excess case in every 1,000 years. Approximately 13,000 
people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from 
exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources of the 
seven facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide 
TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be less than 1 (at a 
respiratory HI of 0.5), mainly driven by emissions of acrylic acid and 
formaldehyde from non-MACT sources.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50 
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of 
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass 
Mat Production source category across different demographic groups 
within the populations living near facilities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White, 
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial, 
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a 
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, and 
linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for two of the 
11 demographic groups, African American and people living below the 
poverty level, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of 
facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding 
national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the 
risk levels of those exposed to source category emissions from the wet-
formed fiberglass mat production facilities, we find that no one is 
exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic 
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are 
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass 
Mat Production, which is available in the docket for this action.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample 
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
    In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and 
allowable emissions from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 
source category. As discussed above, we consider our analysis of risk 
from allowable emissions to be conservative and, as such, to represent 
an upper bound estimate of risk from emissions allowed under the NESHAP 
for the source category.
    The inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to 
emissions from sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 
source category is less than 1-in-1 million, based on actual emissions. 
The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.0003 
excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case in 3,000 years, based on actual 
emissions. For allowable emissions, we estimate that the inhalation 
cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in 
this source category is 1-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of 
cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.0009 excess cancer cases per 
year, or one case in every 1,000 years, based on allowable emissions.
    The Agency estimates that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from 
inhalation exposure is 0.006 due to actual emissions and 0.009 due to 
allowable emissions. The screening assessment of worst-case acute 
inhalation impacts from worst-case 1-hour emissions indicates that no 
HAP exceed an acute HQ of 1.
    Since no PB-HAP are emitted by this source category, a multipathway 
risk assessment was not warranted.
    In determining whether risk is acceptable, the EPA considered all 
available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as 
described above. The results indicate that both the actual and 
allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are 
less than or equal to 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit 
of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer 
TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and 
allowable emissions. Finally, the evaluation of acute noncancer risks 
was conservative and showed that acute risks are below a level of 
concern. Further, since no PB-HAP are emitted, no multipathway risks 
are expected as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
    Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the 
risk remaining after implementation of the of the existing MACT 
standards for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category 
is acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost 
and feasibility of available control

[[Page 14997]]

technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and 
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in 
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) 
due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other 
health information considered in the risk acceptability determination 
described above. In this analysis, we considered the results of the 
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule 
review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or 
other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be 
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health.
    Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are 
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any 
risk reductions, from further available control options would result in 
minimal health benefits. Moreover, as noted in our discussion of the 
technology review in section IV.C of this preamble, no additional 
measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from affected 
sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category. 
Thus, we are proposing that the 2002 Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat 
Production NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effects
    We did not identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP 
included in our environmental risk screening, and we are unaware of any 
adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by the Wet-Formed 
Fiberglass Mat Production source category. Therefore, we do not expect 
adverse environmental effects as a result of HAP emissions from this 
source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a 
more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, 
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental 
effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology 
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for control of formaldehyde emissions from drying 
and curing ovens at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. In 
conducting the technology review, we reviewed various informational 
sources regarding the emissions from drying and curing ovens. The 
review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews of air 
permits for wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities, regulatory 
actions for emission sources similar to mat drying and curing ovens, 
and a review of relevant literature. We reviewed these data sources for 
information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were 
not considered during the development of the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat 
Production NESHAP. We also looked for information on improvements in 
practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since 
development of the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NEHSAP.
    After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did 
not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies to reduce formaldehyde emissions from the drying and 
curing ovens used at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. 
We considered the following four control technologies and processes in 
our review: carbon absorbers, biofilters, thermal oxidizers, and low-
HAP or no-HAP binder formulations. Due to the characteristics of the 
drying and curing oven exhaust, we concluded that neither carbon 
adsorbers or biofilters are technically feasible control options. 
Further, while advancements have been made with low and no-HAP binder 
formulations, they are not broadly available for the various types of 
wet-formed fiberglass produced. For example, some wet-formed fiberglass 
products are used in roofing applications, and mats that are produced 
with low or no-HAP binders tend to sag, shrink, or become distorted 
when they come into contact with hot asphalt used in roofing 
applications. Therefore, we concluded the use of low or no-HAP binder 
formulations is not a technically feasible process change. We 
considered improvements in thermal oxidizers given they were identified 
as technically feasible for reducing HAP emission from drying and 
curing ovens in the 2002 rulemaking and because all facilities 
currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH use thermal oxidizers 
to reduce formaldehyde emissions. We did not identify any improvements 
in performance of thermal oxidizers at existing facilities that 
consistently demonstrated greater reduction in formaldehyde emissions 
than is currently required by the NESHAP. Furthermore, a more stringent 
standard could have the perverse environmental impact of increasing HAP 
emissions. As owner/operators move towards use of lower HAP binders, 
HAP emissions are reduced. However, due to the relatively dilute HAP 
emissions in the exhaust gases, it becomes more difficult to maintain 
high percent reductions in emissions. A more stringent standard would 
likely require the refurbishment or replacement of existing thermal 
oxidizers and could slow the development and adoption of the lower HAP 
binders. Finally, there are cost considerations that militate against 
setting more stringent standards for formaldehyde under CAA section 
112(d(6). For example, any new facility that becomes subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHH would likely be a rebuilt line at an existing 
location and would likely use the existing thermal oxidizer rather than 
installing a new thermal oxidizer. A more stringent standard could 
instead require the replacement of the existing thermal oxidizer, 
resulting in a large capital expenditure for minor HAP reductions.
    Based on the technology review, we determined that there are no 
cost-effective developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this 
source category. Therefore, we are not proposing revisions to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHH under CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details 
of our technology review can be found in the memorandum, Section 
112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, 
which is available in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on 
our proposed decision.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is 
proposing additional revisions. We are proposing revisions to the SSM 
provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent 
with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the 
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 
emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various 
other changes to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
and miscellaneous technical and editorial changes to the regulatory 
text. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are 
discussed below.
1. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the

[[Page 14998]]

Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. 
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of 
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in 
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that 
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule 
which appears at 40 CFR 63.2986(g)(1). Consistent with Sierra Club v. 
EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. 
We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHH (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is 
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to 
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that 
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM exemption as further described below.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are 
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment 
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Owners and 
operators of all seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities 
employ thermal oxidizer controls to limit emissions from drying and 
curing ovens. Ovens along with their thermal oxidizer controls begin 
operating and reach designated operational temperatures prior to 
fiberglass mat first entering the oven and remain operating at those 
temperatures at least until mat is no longer being dried and cured in 
the oven. Because thermal oxidizer controls are employed during all 
periods that the drying and curing oven is processing fiberglass mat, 
there is no need to establish separate formaldehyde standards for 
periods of startup and shutdown. We do, however, find it necessary to 
propose establishing definitions of startup and shutdown for purposes 
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. The proposed definitions are needed to 
clarify that it is not the setting in operation of, and cessation of 
operation of, the drying and curing oven (i.e., affected source) that 
accurately define startup and shutdown, but, rather, the setting in 
operation of, and cessation of operation of, the drying and curing of 
wet-formed fiberglass mat. The formaldehyde standards can only be met 
during periods that fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the 
oven. Therefore, it is appropriate to define startup and shutdown on 
such periods.
    Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. 
Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably 
preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring 
equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA 
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during 
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 
112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the 
Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under 
CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar 
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent 
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when 
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase 
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the 
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies 
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts 
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that 
analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same 
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during 
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the 
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory 
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section 
112 standards.
    As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for 
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the 
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to 
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely 
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are 
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically 
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary 
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to 
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than 
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, 
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the 
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any 
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain 
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable 
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator 
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be 
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In 
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly 
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal 
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for 
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a 
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source 
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control 
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the 
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's

[[Page 14999]]

approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a 
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    Although no statutory language compels EPA to set standards for 
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For 
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review, 
the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of 
malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or 
emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine 
that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to 
the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA 
will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a 
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has 
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources 
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage 
commenters to provide any such information.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. 40 CFR 63.2986 General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by 
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) 
describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language 
in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the 
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add 
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2986(g) that reflects the 
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to 
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no 
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, 
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the 
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2986(g) does not include 
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 
2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by 
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) 
imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the 
SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.2986.
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs 
require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is 
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will 
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The 
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources 
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the 
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of 
SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the 
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires 
that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with 
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to 
apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.2992 Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 
performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a 
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2992(e). The performance 
testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General 
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The 
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 
restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and 
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes 
of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions 
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted 
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often 
not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing 
to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator 
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the 
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request, but 
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The 
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on 
that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the 
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) 
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a

[[Page 15000]]

``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan 
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control 
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a 
quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The final sentence in 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which 
is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 
CFR 63.2994(a)(2) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except 
that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The 
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required 
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
f. 40 CFR 63.2998 Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by 
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) 
describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. 
These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is 
proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal 
operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of 
special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a 
startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional 
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by 
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) 
describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA 
is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2998(e). The 
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General 
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the 
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of 
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring 
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any 
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source 
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the 
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2998(e) a 
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the 
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, 
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over 
any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate 
the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss 
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, 
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is 
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to 
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine 
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data 
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize 
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by 
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the 
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events 
when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is 
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The 
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2988(e).
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by 
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the 
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to 
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The 
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer 
be required.
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an 
owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept 
to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 
40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement 
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. 40 CFR 63.3000 Reporting
    We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing 
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the 
reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To 
replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is 
proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3000(c). The 
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in 
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are 
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an 
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning 
such events in a compliance report already required under this rule on 
a semiannual basis. We are proposing that the report must contain the 
number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including 
unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments, 
therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross reference to 40 
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii)

[[Page 15001]]

describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions 
when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow 
the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report 
when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not 
consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
h. Definitions
    We are proposing that definitions of ``Startup'' and ``Shutdown'' 
be added to 40 CFR 63.3004. The current rule relies on the 40 CFR part 
63, subpart A, definitions of these terms which are based on the 
setting in operation of, and cessation of operation of, the affected 
source (i.e., drying and curing oven). As previously explained in this 
section, the formaldehyde standards can only be met during periods that 
fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the oven. Because we are 
proposing that standards in this rule apply at all times, we find it 
appropriate to propose definitions of startup and shutdown based on 
these periods to clarify that it is the setting in operation of, and 
cessation of operation of, the drying and curing of wet-formed 
fiberglass mat that define startup and shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHH. The new definition of ``Startup'' being proposed 
reads: ``Startup means the setting in operation of the drying and 
curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Startup begins 
when resin infused fiberglass mat enters the oven to be dried and cured 
for the first time or after a shutdown event.'' The new definition of 
``Shutdown'' being proposed reads: ``Shutdown means the cessation of 
operation of the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any 
purpose. Shutdown ends when fiberglass mat is no longer being dried or 
cured in the oven and the oven no longer contains any resin infused 
binder.''
    We are proposing that the definition of ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR 
63.3004 be revised to remove language that differentiates between 
normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events. The 
current definition of ``Deviation'' is ``any instance in which an 
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 
such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 
established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any 
emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard; (2) 
fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an 
applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the 
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a 
permit; or (3) fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or 
work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.'' The revised definition of ``Deviation'' being proposed 
which eliminates the third criteria reads: ``Deviation means any 
instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an 
owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement 
or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited 
to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or 
(2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an 
applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the 
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a 
permit.''
2. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
    The EPA proposes to revise the rule's monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements in three ways: (1) Performance test results 
would be submitted electronically; (2) compliance reports would be 
submitted semiannually when deviations from applicable standards occur; 
and (3) parameter monitoring would no longer be required during periods 
when a non-HAP binder is being used.
a. Electronic Reporting
    40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH does not currently require electronic 
reporting. Through this action, the EPA is proposing that owners and 
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) 
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 
The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed 
in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data 
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data 
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the 
regulated community. Under current requirements, paper test reports are 
often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more 
difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic 
storage of such reports would make data more accessible for review, 
analyses, and sharing. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-
based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying 
data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, 
and providing data quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air 
agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a 
plan \15\ to periodically review its regulations to determine if they 
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in an effort to 
make regulations more effective and less burdensome. The plan includes 
replacing outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. In 
keeping with this plan and the White House's Digital Government 
Strategy,\16\ in 2013 the EPA issued an agency-wide policy specifying 
that new regulations will require reports to be electronic to the 
maximum extent possible.\17\ By proposing electronic submission of 
performance test reports for 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH facilities, 
the EPA is taking steps to implement this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA's Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic 
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011. 
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \16\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
    \17\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, 
is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly interface 
that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily available, 
electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for 
many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An 
emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the 
quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity 
associated with the release of that pollutant (e.g., kg of particulate 
emitted per Mg of coal burned). Such factors facilitate the estimation 
of emissions from various sources of air pollution and are an important 
tool in developing emissions inventories, which in turn are the basis 
for numerous efforts, including trends analysis, regional and local 
scale air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human 
exposure modeling. Emissions factors are also widely used in regulatory 
applicability

[[Page 15002]]

determinations and in permitting decisions.
    The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many 
of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a 
particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the 
emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize 
that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and 
quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles 
on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number 
of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work 
practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to 
keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions 
factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate 
the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. 
By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in 
this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the 
submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and 
efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is 
currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an 
increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions 
factors would provide more confidence that the factor is of higher 
quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
    Additionally, by making the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the 
public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology 
and risk-based reviews. As a result of having performance test reports 
and air emission data readily accessible, our ability to carry out 
comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter 
period of time. These data will provide useful information on control 
efficiencies being achieved and maintained in practice within a source 
category and across source categories for regulated sources and 
pollutants. These reports can also be used to inform the technology-
review process by providing information on improvements to add-on 
technology and new control technology.
    Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and 
performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these 
data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated air agencies or 
industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the 
EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial 
information collection requests (ICRs) may be needed in conjunction 
with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. We 
expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to 
respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain 
less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack 
test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost 
savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these 
required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the 
ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports 
from the EPA Regional offices. While the regulated community may 
benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from 
the agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly, 
resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
    Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or 
duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple 
government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's 
electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air 
agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will 
accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the 
option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to 
submit to the air agencies, and, thus, minimize the time spent 
reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage 
costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be 
minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of 
electronically submitted data and reports.
    Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated 
review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because 
performance test data would be readily-available in standard electronic 
format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data 
electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports 
and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic 
format facilitates review through the use of software ``search'' 
options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in 
spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the 
reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic 
reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as 
long as they have access to the internet). The ability to access and 
review reports electronically assists air agencies in determining 
compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and accurately, 
potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which could 
minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the 
general public.
    The proposed electronic reporting of test data is consistent with 
electronic data trends (e.g., electronic banking and income tax 
filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is already common 
practice in many media offices at the EPA. The changes being proposed 
in this rulemaking are needed to continue the EPA's transition to 
electronic reporting.
    Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which 
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, 
the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report 
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should 
occur as soon as possible.
    In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the situation where an extension may 
be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude 
you from accessing the system and submitting required reports. If 
either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time beginning 5 business 
days prior to the date that the submission is due, and the 
unavailability prevents you from submitting a report by the required 
date, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 5 
business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate 
timeframe because if the system is down prior to this time, you still 
have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is back online. 
However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due, 
we realize that this could greatly impact your ability to submit a 
required report on time. We will notify you about known outages as far 
in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI 
website, and posting on the CDX website so that you can plan 
accordingly and still meet your reporting deadline. However, if a 
planned or unplanned outage occurs and you believe that it will affect 
or it has affected your ability to comply with an electronic reporting 
requirement, we have provided a process to assert such a claim.
    In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the situation where an extension may 
be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event 
that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of 
the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility that

[[Page 15003]]

prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are 
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or 
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. If such an event 
occurs or is still occurring or if there are still lingering effects of 
the event in the 5 business days prior to a submission deadline, we 
have provided a process to assert a claim of force majeure.
    We are providing these potential extensions to protect you from 
noncompliance in cases where you cannot successfully submit a report by 
the reporting deadline for reasons outside of your control as described 
above. We are not providing an extension for other instances. You 
should register for CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance 
date, in order to make sure that you can complete the identity proofing 
process prior to the initial compliance date. Additionally, we 
recommend you start developing reports early, in case any questions 
arise during the reporting process.
b. Frequency of Compliance Reports
    Section 63.3000(c) of the current rule requires owners and 
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to 
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to submit compliance reports on a 
semiannual basis unless there are deviations from emission limits or 
operating limits. In those instances, the current rule requires that 
compliance reports be submitted on a quarterly basis. The EPA is 
proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3000(c) to require that compliance 
reports be submitted on a semiannual basis in all instances. Reporting 
on a semiannual basis will adequately provide a check on the operation 
and maintenance of process, control, and monitoring equipment and 
identify any problems with complying with rule requirements.
c. Parameter Monitoring and Recording During Use of Binder Containing 
No HAP
    Section 63.2984 of the current rule requires owners and operators 
of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart HHHH to maintain the operating parameters established 
during the most recent performance test. Sections 63.2996 and 63.2998 
of the current rule require owners and operators to monitor and record 
the parameters listed in Table 1 to subpart HHHH. The EPA is proposing 
that during periods when the binder formulation being used to produce 
mat does not contain any HAP (i.e., formaldehyde or any other HAP 
listed under section 112(b) of the CAA), owners and operators would not 
be required to monitor or record any of the parameters listed in Table 
1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, including control device parameters. 
For each of these periods, we propose that owners and operators would 
be required to record the dates and times that production of mat using 
a non-HAP binder began and ended. To clearly identify these periods 
when the binder formulation being used to produce mat does not contain 
any HAP, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, 
sections 63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 and table 1, and also proposing 
that a definition of Non-HAP binder be added to 40 CFR 63.3004. The new 
definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' being proposed reads: ``Non-HAP binder 
means a binder formulation that does not contain any hazardous air 
pollutants listed on the material safety data sheets of the compounds 
used in the binder formulation.''
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
    We are also proposing several clarifying revisions to the final 
rule as described in Table 2 of this preamble.

 Table 2--Miscellaneous Proposed Changes to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Description of proposed
          Section of subpart HHHH                      change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2984............................   Amend paragraph
                                             (a)(4) to clarify
                                             compliance with a different
                                             operating limit means the
                                             operating limit specified
                                             in paragraph (a)(1).
                                             Amend paragraph (e)
                                             to allow use of a more
                                             recent edition of the
                                             currently referenced
                                             ``Industrial Ventilation: A
                                             Manual of Recommended
                                             Practice,'' American
                                             Conference of Governmental
                                             Industrial Hygienists,
                                             i.e., the appropriate
                                             chapters of ``Industrial
                                             Ventilation: A Manual of
                                             Recommended Practice for
                                             Design'' (27th edition), or
                                             an alternate as approved by
                                             the Administrator.
                                             Revise text
                                             regarding incorporation by
                                             reference (IBR) in
                                             paragraph (e) by replacing
                                             the reference to 40 CFR
                                             63.3003 with, instead, 40
                                             CFR 63.14.
40 CFR 63.2993............................   Amend paragraphs
                                             (a) and (b) to update a
                                             reference.
                                             Re-designate
                                             paragraph (c) as paragraph
                                             (e) and amend the newly
                                             designated paragraph to
                                             clarify that EPA Method 320
                                             (40 CFR part 63, appendix A-
                                             2) is an acceptable method
                                             for measuring the
                                             concentration of
                                             formaldehyde.
                                             Add new paragraph
                                             (c) to clarify that EPA
                                             Methods 3 and 3A (40 CFR
                                             part 60, appendix A) are
                                             acceptable methods for
                                             measuring oxygen and carbon
                                             dioxide concentrations
                                             needed to correct
                                             formaldehyde concentration
                                             measurements to a standard
                                             basis.
                                             Add new paragraph
                                             (d) to clarify that EPA
                                             Method 4 (40 CFR part 60,
                                             appendix A-3) is an
                                             acceptable method for
                                             measuring the moisture
                                             content of the stack gas.
40 CFR 63.2999............................   Amend paragraph (b)
                                             to update list of example
                                             electronic medium on which
                                             records may be kept.
                                             Add paragraph (c)
                                             to clarify that any records
                                             that are submitted
                                             electronically via the
                                             EPA's CEDRI may be
                                             maintained in electronic
                                             format.
40 CFR 63.3003............................   Remove text and
                                             reserve the section
                                             consistent with revisions
                                             to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources and affected 
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before 
April 6, 2018 must comply with all of the amendments no later than 180 
days after the effective date of the final rule. (The final action is 
not expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so 
the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as 
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10)). For existing sources, we are 
proposing four changes that would impact ongoing compliance 
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. As discussed elsewhere 
in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that 
performance test results be electronically submitted, we are proposing 
to change the frequency of

[[Page 15004]]

required submissions of compliance reports for facilities with 
deviations from applicable standards from a quarterly basis to a 
semiannual basis, we are proposing to change the requirements for SSM 
by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard 
during SSM periods, and we are proposing to no longer require parameter 
monitoring during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used to 
produce mat. Our experience with similar industries that are required 
to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and 
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance 
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new 
electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic 
reporting and to convert logistics of reporting processes to different 
time-reporting parameters shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to 
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar 
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally 
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended 
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can 
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in 
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; to adjust parameter 
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions such as those 
proposed here for periods of non-HAP binder use; and to update their 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised 
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different 
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the 
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our 
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of 
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be 
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is 
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of 
this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the 
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed 
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of 
information from sources in this source category regarding specific 
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed 
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for 
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that 
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance 
date. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction 
after April 6, 2018 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, 
including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective 
date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All 
affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current 
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH until the applicable 
compliance date of the amended rule.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The EPA estimates that there are seven wet-formed fiberglass mat 
production facilities that are subject to the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat 
Production NESHAP and would be affected by the proposed amendments. The 
bases of our estimate of affected facilities are provided in the 
memorandum, Wet-Formed Fiberglass: Residual Risk Modeling File 
Documentation (Modeling File Documentation Memo), which is available in 
the docket for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned 
or potential new or reconstructed wet-formed fiberglass mat production 
facilities.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the seven wet-
formed fiberglass mat production facilities that are subject to the 
NESHAP are approximately 23 tpy. Because we are not proposing revisions 
to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any air quality impacts as 
a result of the proposed amendments.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that 
would be subject to the proposed amendments would incur minimal net 
costs to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, some 
estimated to have costs and some estimated to have cost savings. 
Nationwide annual costs associated with the proposed requirements are 
estimated to be $200 per year in each of the 3 years following 
promulgation of amendments. The EPA believes that the seven wet-formed 
fiberglass mat production facilities which are known to be subject to 
the NESHAP can meet the proposed requirements without incurring 
additional capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs 
associated with the proposed amendments are related to recordkeeping 
and reporting labor costs. For further information on the requirements 
being proposed, see section IV of this preamble. For further 
information on the costs and cost savings associated with the 
requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Cost Impacts of Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review Proposal, 
and the document, Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Wet-Formed 
Fiberglass Mat Production, which are both available in the docket for 
this action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As noted earlier, the nationwide annual costs associated with the 
proposed requirements are estimated to be $200 per year in each of the 
3 years following promulgation of the amendments. The present value of 
the total cost over these 3 years is approximately $550 in 2016 dollars 
under a 3-percent discount rate, and $510 in 2016 dollars under a 7-
percent discount rate. These costs are not expected to result in 
business closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit 
loss.
    For further information on the economic impacts associated with the 
requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Proposal Economic 
Impact Analysis for the Risk and Technology Review: Wet-Formed 
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category, which is available in the 
docket for this action.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as 
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if 
finalized, would result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the 
proposed amendment requiring electronic submittal of performance test 
results will increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with 
current trends of data availability, will further assist in the 
protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately 
result in less burden on the regulated community. In addition, the 
proposed amendments reducing parameter monitoring and recording 
requirements when non-HAP binder is being used to produce mat and 
reducing frequency of compliance reports will reduce burden for 
regulated facilities while continuing to protect public health and the 
environment. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for more information.

[[Page 15005]]

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In 
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also 
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and 
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any 
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles 
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting 
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the 
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII 
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
    We specifically solicit comment on an additional issue under 
consideration that would reduce regulatory burden for owner/operators 
of certain drying and curing ovens. We are requesting comment on 
exempting performance testing requirements for drying and curing ovens 
that are subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the use of 
only non-HAP binders. 40 CFR 63.2991 currently requires formaldehyde 
testing for all drying and curing ovens subject to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHH, even if the facility only uses a non-HAP binder. Such an 
exemption would reduce burden for owners and operators that have 
switched to using only non-HAP binders without any increase in HAP 
emissions. Owners and operators of drying and curing ovens that are 
still permitted to use HAP containing binders would still be required 
to conduct periodic performance testing even if they are not currently 
using binders that contain HAP.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for 
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP 
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR website, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information.
    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309 (through the method described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple 
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file 
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility 
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be 
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are 
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are 
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. 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 Order 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 OMB for review.

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1964.08. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    We are proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, in the form 
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; requiring 
electronic submittal of performance test reports; reducing the 
frequency of compliance reports to a semiannual basis when there are 
deviations from applicable standards; and reducing the parameter 
monitoring and recording requirements during use of binder containing 
no HAP. We also included review of the amended rule by affected 
facilities in the updated ICR for this proposed rule. In addition, the 
number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of 
respondents was reduced from 14 to 7 based on consultation with 
industry representatives and state/local agencies.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that 
produce wet-formed fiberglass mat subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
HHHH.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart HHHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: Seven.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule 
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual 
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements 
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to 
be 1,470 hours (per year). Of these, 3 hours (per year) is the 
incremental burden to comply with the proposed rule amendments. Burden 
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the 
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 
$95,500 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and 
maintenance costs. Of the total, $200 (per year) is the incremental 
cost to comply with the proposed amendments to the rule.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to

[[Page 15006]]

the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You 
may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], 
Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB 
must receive comments no later than May 7, 2018. The EPA will respond 
to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

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. There are no 
small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the document, 
Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk 
and Technology Review: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source 
Category, available in the docket for this action.

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. None of the seven wet-formed fiberglass mat 
production facilities that have been identified as being affected by 
this proposed action are owned or operated by tribal governments or 
located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 
to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III.A and C and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and 
further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the 
February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in 
the docket for this action.

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) and 1 CFR 
part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS). The EPA proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 
3A, 4, 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While the EPA 
identified 11 VCS as being potentially applicable as alternatives to 
EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, the Agency does not 
propose to use them. Use of these VCS would be impractical because of 
their lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and/or other 
important technical and policy considerations. Results of the search 
are documented in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results 
for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-
formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which is available in the docket for 
this action. Methods 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 
are used to determine the formaldehyde concentrations before and after 
the control device (e.g., thermal oxidizer). Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A are used the determine the gas flow rate 
which is used with the concentration of formaldehyde to calculate the 
mass emission rate. Additional information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/emc/emc-promulgated-test-methods.
    Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd 
Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5, 
``Exhaust System Design Procedure,'' and Industrial Ventilation: A 
Manual of Recommended Practice for Design, 27th Edition, 2010, are 
compilations of research data and information on design, maintenance, 
and evaluation of industrial exhaust ventilation systems. They include 
suggestions for appropriate hood design considerations and aspects for 
fan design. The Manuals are used by engineers and industrial hygienists 
as guidance for design and evaluation of industrial ventilation 
systems. Additional information can be found at https://www.acgih.org.

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).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of 
this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review 
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-Formed 
Fiberglass Mat Production, available in the docket for this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: March 19, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of 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 A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph 
(a) and paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to read as follows:

[[Page 15007]]

Sec.  63.14   Incorporations by reference.

    (a) * * * For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd 
Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5, 
``Exhaust System Design Procedure.'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to 
Subpart RRR, Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and 63.2984(e).
    (3) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for 
Design, 27th Edition, 2010. IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1503, 
63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart RRR, 
Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and 63.2984(e).
* * * * *

Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production

0
3. Section 63.2984 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (4), (b), 
and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2984   What operating limits must I meet?

    (a) * * *
    (1) You must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the average 
operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall below 
the temperature established during your performance test and specified 
in your OMM plan, except during periods when using a non-HAP binder.
* * * * *
    (4) If you use an add-on control device other than a thermal 
oxidizer or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a 
different operating limit than the limit specified in paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section, you must obtain approval for the alternative 
monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). You must include the approved 
alternative monitoring and operating limits in the OMM plan specified 
in Sec.  63.2987.
    (b) When during a period of normal operation, you detect that an 
operating parameter deviates from the limit or range established in 
paragraph (a) of this section, you must initiate corrective actions 
within 1 hour according to the provisions of your OMM plan. The 
corrective actions must be completed in an expeditious manner as 
specified in the OMM plan.
* * * * *
    (e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or other control device to 
achieve the emission limits in Sec.  63.2983, you must capture and 
convey the formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven 
according to the procedures in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial 
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice'' (23rd Edition) or the 
appropriate chapters of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice for Design'' (27th edition) (both incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14). In addition, you may use an alternate as 
approved by the Administrator.
0
4. Section 63.2985 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2985   When do I have to comply with these standards?

* * * * *
    (b) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 
26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 must be in compliance with this 
subpart at startup or by April 11, 2002, whichever is later.
* * * * *
    (d) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after 
April 6, 2018 must be in compliance with this subpart at startup or by 
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever 
is later.
0
5. Section 63.2986 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.2986   How do I comply with the standards?

* * * * *
    (g) You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limits 
in Sec.  63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec.  63.2984 at all 
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limits in Sec.  
63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec.  63.2984 at all times.
    (2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain any affected 
source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring 
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1). After [DATE 
180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], at 
all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including 
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in 
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize 
emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce 
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been 
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance 
with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on 
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source.
    (3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan must address the startup, 
shutdown, and corrective actions taken for malfunctioning process and 
air pollution control equipment. A startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan is not required after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
0
6. Section 63.2992 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.2992   How do I conduct a performance test?

* * * * *
    (b) You must conduct the performance test according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(a) through (d), (e)(2) through (4), and (f) 
through (h).
* * * * *
    (e) Performance tests must be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance 
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.2993 is amended by:

[[Page 15008]]

0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (e) through 
(g);
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2993   What test methods must I use in conducting performance 
tests?

    (a) Use EPA Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1) for selecting 
the sampling port location and the number of sampling ports.
    (b) Use EPA Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1) for measuring 
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (c) Use EPA Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2) for 
measuring oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations needed to correct 
formaldehyde concentration measurements to a standard basis.
    (d) Use EPA Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) for measuring 
the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (e) Use EPA Method 316, 318, or 320 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) 
for measuring the concentration of formaldehyde.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.2994 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.2994   How do I verify the performance of monitoring 
equipment?

    (a) Before conducting the performance test, you must take the steps 
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Install and calibrate all process equipment, control devices, 
and monitoring equipment.
    (2) Develop and implement a continuous monitoring system (CMS) 
quality control program that includes written procedures for CMS 
according to Sec.  63.8(d)(1) and (2). You must keep these written 
procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the 
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to 
be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. 
If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous 
(i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on 
record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the 
Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. 
The program of corrective action should be included in the plan 
required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
    (3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the CMS according to Sec.  
63.8(e), which specifies the general requirements and requirements for 
notifications, the site-specific performance evaluation plan, conduct 
of the performance evaluation, and reporting of performance evaluation 
results.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.2996 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2996   What must I monitor?

    (a) You must monitor the parameters listed in table 1 of this 
subpart and any other parameters specified in your OMM plan. The 
parameters must be monitored, at a minimum, at the corresponding 
frequencies listed in table 1 of this subpart, except as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) During periods when using a non-HAP binder, you are not 
required to monitor the parameters in table 1 of this subpart.
0
10. Section 63.2998 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraphs (a) and (c), and 
paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (f);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h)
0
d. Adding new paragraph (g).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.2998   What records must I maintain?

    You must maintain records according to the procedures of Sec.  
63.10. You must maintain the records listed in paragraphs (a) through 
(h) of this section.
    (a) All records required by Sec.  63.10, where applicable. Table 2 
of this subpart presents the applicable requirements of the general 
provisions.
* * * * *
    (c) During periods when the binder formulation being applied 
contains HAP, records of values of monitored parameters listed in Table 
1 of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating 
limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart. During periods when using 
non-HAP binder, and that you elect not to monitor the parameters in 
table 1 of this subpart, you are required to record the dates and times 
that production of mat using non-HAP binder began and ended.
* * * * *
    (e) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], if an operating parameter deviation occurs, you must 
record:
* * * * *
    (f) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], keep all records specified in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) 
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (g) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], in the event that an affected source fails to meet 
an applicable standard, including deviations from an emission limit in 
Sec.  63.2983 or an operating limit in Sec.  63.2984, you must record 
the number of failures and, for each failure, you must:
    (1) Record the date, time, and duration of the failure;
    (2) Describe the cause of the failure;
    (3) Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, 
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over 
any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the 
emissions; and
    (4) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.2986(g)(2), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation and/or the 
operating parameter to the limit or to within the range specified in 
the OMM plan, along with dates and times at which corrective actions 
were initiated and completed.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.2999 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.2999   In what form and for how long must I maintain records?

* * * * *
    (b) Your records must be readily available and in a form so they 
can be easily inspected and reviewed. You can keep the records on paper 
or an alternative medium, such as microfilm, computer, computer disks, 
compact disk, digital versatile disk, flash drive, other commonly used 
electronic storage medium, magnetic tape, or on microfiche.
    (c) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format. 
This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the 
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available 
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site 
compliance evaluation.
0
11. Section 63.3000 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory 
text, (1), (4), (5), (d), and (e) and adding paragraphs (c)(6), (f), 
and (g) to read as follows:

[[Page 15009]]

Sec.  63.3000  What notifications and reports must I submit?

* * * * *
    (c) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual 
compliance reports according to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (6) of this section.
    (1) Dates for submitting reports. Unless the Administrator has 
agreed to a different schedule for submitting reports under Sec.  
63.10(a), you must deliver or postmark each semiannual compliance 
report no later than 30 days following the end of each semiannual 
reporting period. The first semiannual reporting period begins on the 
compliance date for your affected source and ends on June 30 or 
December 31, whichever date immediately follows your compliance date. 
Each subsequent semiannual reporting period for which you must submit a 
semiannual compliance report begins on July 1 or January 1 and ends 6 
calendar months later. Before [DATE 1 DAY AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], as required by Sec.  63.10(e)(3), you 
must begin submitting quarterly compliance reports if you deviate from 
the emission limits in Sec.  63.2983 or the operating limits in Sec.  
63.2984. After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], quarterly compliance reports are not required.
* * * * *
    (4) No deviations. If there were no instances where an affected 
source failed to meet an applicable standard, including no deviations 
from the emission limit in Sec.  63.2983 or the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must include a 
statement to that effect. If there were no periods during which the 
continuous parameter monitoring systems were out-of-control as 
specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must 
include a statement to that effect.
    (5) Deviations. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], if there was an instance where an 
affected source failed to meet an applicable standard, including a 
deviation from the emission limit in Sec.  63.2983 or an operating 
limit in Sec.  63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must record 
the number of failures and contain the information in paragraphs 
(c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section:
    (i) The date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (ii) The date and time that each continuous parameter monitoring 
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level 
checks.
    (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous parameter 
monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in 
Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) A list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (v) The date and time that corrective actions were taken, a 
description of the cause of the failure, and a description of the 
corrective actions taken.
    (vi) A summary of the total duration of each failure during the 
semiannual reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 
total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period.
    (vii) A breakdown of the total duration of the failures during the 
semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (viii) A brief description of the process units.
    (ix) A brief description of the continuous parameter monitoring 
system.
    (6) Deviations. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register], if there was an instance where an 
affected source failed to meet an applicable standard, including a 
deviation from the emission limit in Sec.  63.2983 or an operating 
limit in Sec.  63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must record 
the number of failures and contain the information in paragraphs 
(c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section:
    (i) The date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (ii) The date and time that each continuous parameter monitoring 
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level 
checks.
    (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous parameter 
monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in 
Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) A list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of 
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission 
limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (v) The date and time that corrective actions were taken, a 
description of the cause of the failure, and a description of the 
corrective actions taken.
    (vi) A summary of the total duration of each failure during the 
semiannual reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 
total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period.
    (vii) A breakdown of the total duration of the failures during the 
semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (viii) A brief description of the process units.
    (ix) A brief description of the continuous parameter monitoring 
system.
    (d) Performance test results. You must submit results of each 
performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart no 
later than 60 days after completing the test as specified in Sec.  
63.10(d)(2). You must include the values measured during the 
performance test for the parameters listed in Table 1 of this subpart 
and the operating limits or ranges to be included in your OMM plan. For 
the thermal oxidizer temperature, you must include 15-minute averages 
and the average for the three 1-hour test runs. Beginning no later than 
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must submit the results following the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language 
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13, unless 
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
    (3) If you claim that some of the performance test information 
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) is confidential business 
information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through 
the use of the EPA's

[[Page 15010]]

ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema 
listed on the EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be 
CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic 
storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked 
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, Mail Drop C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted 
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (e) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [DATE 181 DAYS 
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if you have a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period, you must submit the reports specified Sec.  63.10(d)(5).
    (f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of 
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due, 
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting 
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of 
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in 
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or 
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or 
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a 
written description identifying the date, time and length of the 
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures 
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a 
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the 
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you 
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The 
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur, 
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an 
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the 
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is 
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances 
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any 
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from 
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within 
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature 
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, 
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the 
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to 
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the 
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you 
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event 
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the 
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a 
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to 
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by 
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting 
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In 
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after 
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of 
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is 
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
12. Section 63.3003 is removed and reserved.
0
13. Section 63.3004 is amended by removing the definition for 
``Deviation'' and adding definitions for ``Deviation after,'' 
``Deviation before,'' ``Non-HAP binder,'' ``Shutdown,'' and ``Startup'' 
in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  63.3004  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register] means any instance in which an affected source 
subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit.
    Deviation after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register] means any instance in which an affected source 
subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating 
limit, or work practice standard; or
    (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
* * * * *
    Non-HAP binder means a binder formulation that does not contain any 
hazardous air pollutants listed on the material safety data sheets of 
the compounds used in the binder formulation.
* * * * *
    Shutdown after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register] means the cessation of operation of the drying 
and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Shutdown ends 
when fiberglass mat is no longer being dried or cured in the oven and 
the oven no longer contains any resin infused binder.
    Startup after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register] means the setting in operation of the drying and 
curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Startup begins 
when resin infused fiberglass mat enters the oven to be dried and cured 
for the first time or after a shutdown event.
* * * * *
0
14. Table 1 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 15011]]



 Table 1 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring
                            and Recordkeeping
    As stated in Sec.   63.2998(c), you must comply with the minimum
  requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   You must monitor these                            And record for the
         parameters:           At this frequency:   monitored parameter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer           Continuously........  15-minute and 3-hour
 temperature \a\.                                    block averages.
2. Other process or control   As specified in your  As specified in your
 device parameters specified   OMM plan.             OMM plan.
 in your OMM plan.\b\
3. Urea-formaldehyde resin    On each operating     The average lb/h
 solids application rate.\d\   day, calculate the    value for each
                               average lb/h          product
                               application rate      manufactured during
                               for each product      the day.
                               manufactured during
                               that day.
4. Resin free-formaldehyde    For each lot of       The value for each
 content \d\.                  resin purchased.      lot used during the
                                                     operating day.
5. Loss-on-ignition c d.....  Measured at least     The value for each
                               once per day, for     product
                               each product          manufactured during
                               manufactured during   the operating day.
                               that day.
6. UF-to-latex ratio in the   For each batch of     The value for each
 binder c d.                   binder prepared the   batch of binder
                               operating day.        prepared during the
                                                     operating day.
7. Weight of the final mat    Each product          The value for each
 product per square (lb/       manufactured during   product
 roofing square).c d           the operating day.    manufactured during
                                                     the operating day.
8. Average nonwoven wet-      For each product      The average value
 formed fiberglass mat         manufactured during   for each product
 production rate (roofing      the operating day.    manufactured during
 square/h).c d                                       operating day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde
  emissions.
\b\ ``Required if process modifications or a control device other than a
  thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions.
\c\ These parameters must be monitored and values recorded, but no
  operating limits apply.
\d\ You are not required to monitor or record these parameters during
  periods when using a non-HAP binder. If you elect to not monitor these
  parameters during these periods, you must record the dates and times
  that production of mat using the non-HAP binder began and ended.

0
15. Table 2 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:


 Table 2 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                      HHHH
  As stated in Sec.   63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
                                              the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                      Requirement         Applies to subpart HHHH        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4)..............  General Applicability...  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.1(a)(5)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)-(8)..............  Yes.                                                .......................
Sec.   63.1(a)(9)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(14)............  Yes.                                                .......................
Sec.   63.1(b).....................  Initial Applicability     Yes.
                                      Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)..................  Applicability After       Yes.
                                      Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)..................  ........................  Yes.....................  Some plants may be area
                                                                                          sources.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5)..............  Yes.                                                .......................
Sec.   63.1(d).....................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.1(e).....................  Applicability of Permit   Yes.                      .......................
                                      Program.
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions.............  Yes.....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.3004.
Sec.   63.3........................  Units and Abbreviations.  Yes.
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(3)..............  Prohibited Activities...  Yes.
Sec.   63.4(a)(4)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.4(a)(5)..................  Yes.                                                .......................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c).................  Circumvention/            Yes.
                                      Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a).....................  Construction/             Yes.
                                      Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)..................  Existing/Constructed/     Yes.
                                      Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(2)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(6)..............  ........................  Yes.
Sec.   63.5(c).....................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.5(d).....................  Application for Approval  Yes.
                                      of Construction/
                                      Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e).....................  Approval of Construction/ Yes.                      .......................
                                      Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f).....................  Approval of Construction/ Yes.                      .......................
                                      Reconstruction Based on
                                      State Review.
Sec.   63.6(a).....................  Compliance with           Yes.                      .......................
                                      Standards and
                                      Maintenance--Applicabil
                                      ity.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5)..............  New and Reconstructed     Yes.                      .......................
                                      Sources-Dates.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..................  Yes.                                                .......................
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..............  Existing Sources Dates..  Yes.....................  Sec.   63.2985
                                                                                          specifies dates.

[[Page 15012]]

 
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..............  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..................  Yes.                                                .......................
Sec.   63.6(d).....................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)...............  General Duty to Minimize  Yes before [DATE 181      See Sec.   63.2986(g)
                                      Emissions.                DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION    for general duty
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE      requirement.
                                                                Federal Register].
                                     ........................  No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)..............  Requirement to Correct    Yes before [DATE 181
                                      Malfunctions ASAP.        DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
                                     ........................  No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).............  Operation and             Yes.....................  Sec.  Sec.   63.2984
                                      Maintenance                                         and 63.2987 specify
                                      Requirements.                                       additional
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..................  SSM Plan Requirements...  Yes before [DATE 181
                                                                DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
                                     ........................  No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..................  SSM Exemption...........  No.                       .......................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3)..........  Compliance with Non-      Yes.                      .......................
                                      Opacity Emission
                                      Standards.
Sec.   63.6(g).....................  Alternative Non-Opacity   Yes.....................  EPA retains approval
                                      Emission Standard.                                  authority.
Sec.   63.6(h).....................  Compliance with Opacity/  No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                      Visible Emissions                                   specify opacity or
                                      Standards.                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14).............  Extension of Compliance.  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(i)(15).................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(i)(16).................  ........................  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.6(j).....................  Exemption from            Yes.                      .......................
                                      Compliance.
Sec.   63.7(a).....................  Performance Test          Yes.                      .......................
                                      Requirements--Applicabi
                                      lity and Dates.
Sec.   63.7(b).....................  Notification of           Yes.                      .......................
                                      Performance Test.
Sec.   63.7(c).....................  Quality Assurance         Yes.                      .......................
                                      Program/Test Plan.
Sec.   63.7(d).....................  Testing Facilities......  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..................  Performance Testing.....  Yes before [DATE 181      See Sec.   63.2992(c).
                                                                DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)..............  Conduct of Tests........  Yes.....................  Sec.   63.2991-63.2994
                                                                                          specify additional
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.7(f).....................  Alternative Test Method.  Yes.....................  EPA retains approval
                                                                                          authority.
Sec.   63.7(g).....................  Data Analysis...........  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.7(h).....................  Waiver of Tests.........  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(2)..............  Monitoring Requirements-- Yes.                      .......................
                                      Applicability.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  ........................  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(b).....................  Conduct of Monitoring...  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...............  General Duty to Minimize  Yes before [DATE 181
                                      Emissions and CMS         DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                      Operation.                OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  Continuous Monitoring     Yes.                      .......................
                                      System (CMS) Operation
                                      and Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  Requirement to Develop    Yes before [DATE 181
                                      SSM Plan for CMS.         DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].

[[Page 15013]]

 
                                     No after [DATE 180 DAYS                             .......................
                                      AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                      FINAL RULE IN THE
                                      Federal Register].
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(4)..............  ........................  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..................  Continuous Opacity        No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                      Monitoring System                                   specify opacity or
                                      (COMS) Procedures.                                  visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)..............  ........................  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(d)(1) and (2)..........  Quality Control.........  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)..................  Written Procedures for    Yes before [DATE 181      See Sec.   63.2994(a).
                                      CMS.                      DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.8(e).....................  CMS Performance           Yes.                      .......................
                                      Evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)..............  Alternative Monitoring    Yes.....................  EPA retains approval
                                      Method.                                             authority.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  Alternative to Relative   No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                      Accuracy Test.                                      require the use of
                                                                                          continuous emissions
                                                                                          monitoring systems
                                                                                          (CEMS)
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)..................  Data Reduction..........  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.8(g)(2)..................  Data Reduction..........  No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          CEMS or COMS.
Sec.   63.8(g)(3)-(5)..............  Data Reduction..........  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(a).....................  Notification              Yes.                      .......................
                                      Requirements--Applicabi
                                      lity.
Sec.   63.9(b).....................  Initial Notifications...  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(c).....................  Request for Compliance    Yes.                      .......................
                                      Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).....................  New Source Notification   Yes.                      .......................
                                      for Special Compliance
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e).....................  Notification of           Yes.                      .......................
                                      Performance Test.
Sec.   63.9(f).....................  Notification of Visible   No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                      Emissions/Opacity Test.                             specify opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)..................  Additional CMS            Yes.                      .......................
                                      Notifications.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)-(3)..............  ........................  No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                                                                          require the use of
                                                                                          COMS or CEMS.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(3)..............  Notification of           Yes.....................  Sec.   63.3000(b)
                                      Compliance Status.                                  specifies additional
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.9(h)(4)..................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(6)..............  ........................  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(i).....................  Adjustment of Deadlines.  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.9(j).....................  Change in Previous        Yes.                      .......................
                                      Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)....................  Recordkeeping/Reporting-- Yes.                      .......................
                                      Applicability.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).................  General Recordkeeping     Yes.....................  Sec.   63.2998 includes
                                      Requirements.                                       additional
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..............  Recordkeeping of          Yes before [DATE 181
                                      Occurrence and Duration   DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                      of Startups and           OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                      Shutdowns.                Federal Register].
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS   .......................
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).............  Recordkeeping of          Yes before [DATE 181      See Sec.   63.2998(e)
                                      Failures to Meet a        DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION    for recordkeeping
                                      Standard.                 OF FINAL RULE IN THE      requirements for an
                                                                Federal Register].        affected source that
                                                                                          fails to meet an
                                                                                          applicable standard.
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)............  Maintenance Records.....  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v).....  Actions Taken to          Yes before [DATE 181
                                      Minimize Emissions        DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                      During SSM.               OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS   .......................
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi).............  Recordkeeping for CMS     Yes.                      .......................
                                      Malfunctions.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)......  Other CMS Requirements..  Yes.                      .......................

[[Page 15014]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).................  Recordkeeping             Yes after [DATE 180 DAYS  .......................
                                      requirement for           AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                      applicability             FINAL RULE IN THE
                                      determinations.           Federal Register].
Sec.   63.10(c)(1).................  Additional CMS            Yes.                      .......................
                                      Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(c)(2)-(4).............  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.10(c)(5)-(8).............  ........................  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(c)(9).................  ........................  No......................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(14)...........  ........................  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)................  Use of SSM Plan.........  Yes before [DATE 181
                                                                DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.10(d)(1).................  General Reporting         Yes.....................  Sec.   63.3000 includes
                                      Requirements.                                       additional
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2).................  Performance Test Results  Yes.....................  Sec.   63.3000 includes
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).................  Opacity or Visible        No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                      Emissions Observations.                             specify opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).................  Progress Reports Under    Yes.                      .......................
                                      Extension of Compliance.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5).................  SSM Reports.............  Yes before [DATE 181      See Sec.   63.3000(c)
                                                                DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION    for malfunction
                                                                OF FINAL RULE IN THE      reporting
                                                                Federal Register].        requirements.
                                                               No after [DATE 180 DAYS
                                                                AFTER PUBLICATION OF
                                                                FINAL RULE IN THE
                                                                Federal Register].
Sec.   63.10(e)(1).................  Additional CMS Reports--  No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                      General.                                            require CEMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(2).................  Reporting results of CMS  Yes.                      .......................
                                      performance evaluations.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3).................  Excess Emission/CMS       Yes.                      .......................
                                      Performance Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).................  COMS Data Reports.......  No......................  Subpart HHHH does not
                                                                                          specify opacity or
                                                                                          visible emission
                                                                                          standards.
Sec.   63.10(f)....................  Recordkeeping/Reporting   Yes.....................  EPA retains approval
                                      Waiver.                                             authority.
Sec.   63.11.......................  Control Device            No......................  Facilities subject to
                                      Requirements--Applicabi                             subpart HHHH do not
                                      lity.                                               use flares as control
                                                                                          devices.
Sec.   63.12.......................  State Authority and       Yes.                      .......................
                                      Delegations.
Sec.   63.13.......................  Addresses...............  Yes.                      .......................
Sec.   63.14.......................  Incorporation by          Yes.                      .......................
                                      Reference.
Sec.   63.15.......................  Availability of           Yes.                      .......................
                                      Information/
                                      Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-06541 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.