National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review, 6676-6701 [2019-01685]
Download as PDF
6676
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
PART 110—[REMOVED]
Office of the Secretary
■
Accordingly, by the authority of 5
U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 110 is removed.
32 CFR Part 110
Dated: February 25, 2019.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[Docket ID: DOD–2018–OS–0046]
RIN 0790–AK32
Standard Rates of Subsistence
Allowance and Commutation Instead
of Uniforms for Members of the Senior
Reserve Officers’ Training Corps
Office of the Under Secretary
for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule removes DoD’s
regulation which provides internal
processes and accounting information in
order to provide subsistence and
commutation instead of uniforms to
members of Senior Reserve Officers’
Training Corps (ROTC) programs
located at eligible colleges and
universities. Examples of eligible
colleges and universities include The
Citadel and Virginia Military Institute
where students wear a uniform
prescribed by the institution instead of
Service-specific uniforms.
DATES: This rule is effective on February
28, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LTCOL Naomi Y. Henigin, 703–695–
5529.
It has been
determined that publication of this CFR
part removal for public comment is
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to public interest since it is
based on removing DoD internal
policies and procedures that are
publicly available on the Department’s
issuance website. DoD internal guidance
concerning subsistence and
commutation to members of Senior
ROTC programs located at eligible
colleges and universities will continue
to be published in DoD Instruction
1215.08, ‘‘Senior Reserve Officers’
Training Corps (ROTC) Programs,’’
available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/
Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/
dodi/121508p.pdf?ver=2019-01-29121836-737.
This rule is not significant under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’
therefore, E.O. 13771, ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’’ does not apply.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 110
Armed forces reserves, Colleges and
universities. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Wages.
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
[FR Doc. 2019–03517 Filed 2–27–19; 8:45 am]
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309; FRL–9988–79–
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source
category regulated under national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we
are taking final action addressing
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM), electronic reporting, and
clarification of rule provisions. These
final amendments address emissions
during periods of SSM; add electronic
reporting; revise certain monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements; and include other
miscellaneous technical and editorial
changes. These final amendments will
result in improved compliance and
implementation of the rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
February 28, 2019. The incorporation by
reference (IBR) of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
February 28, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room hours of operation are
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Docket
Center is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final action, contact
Keith Barnett, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243–04), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
5605; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and
email address: barnett.keith@epa.gov.
For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Ted
Palma, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (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 NESHAP to a particular entity,
contact Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. EPA 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:
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:
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6677
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Office of Safety and Health
Administration
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SDS safety data sheet
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Background information. On April 6,
2018, the EPA proposed revisions to the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
NESHAP based on our RTR (83 FR
14997). In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in
‘‘Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production Risk and Technology
Review,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0309. A ‘‘track changes’’ version
of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action
is available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category in our April 6, 2018,
proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
D. What other changes have been made to
the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
F. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category
C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category
D. Other Revisions To Monitoring,
Performance Testing, and Reporting
Requirements for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category
E. Requirements for Submission of
Performance Tests for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY
THIS FINAL ACTION
NESHAP and source category
NAICS
code 1
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production .........................................
327212
1 North
American
Industry
Classification
System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate
NESHAP. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of any aspect
of this NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
copy of this final action at: https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/wet-formed-fiberglass-matproduction-national-emissionstandards. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key
technical documents at this same
website.
Additional information is available on
the RTR website at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
This information includes an overview
of the RTR program, links to project
websites for the RTR source categories,
and detailed emissions and other data
we used as inputs to the risk
assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) by April
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6678
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
29, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2),
the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that only an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment (including
any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to
reconsider the rule if the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within the period
for public comment or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule. Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
two-stage regulatory process to address
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the
first stage, we must identify categories
of sources emitting one or more of the
HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and
then promulgate technology-based
NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major
sources’’ are those that emit, or have the
potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more,
or 25 tpy or more of any combination of
HAP. For major sources, these standards
are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions
of HAP achievable (after considering
cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs
the EPA to consider the application of
measures, processes, methods, systems,
or techniques, including, but not limited
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
to those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or
treat HAP when released from a process,
stack, storage, or fugitive emissions
point; are design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards; or
any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
MACT floor requirements, and which
may not be based on cost
considerations. See CAA section
112(d)(3); National Lime Ass’n v. EPA,
233 F.3d 625, 640 (D.C. Cir. 2000). For
new sources, the MACT floor cannot be
less stringent than the emission control
achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be
less stringent than floors for new
sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
(or the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards
more stringent than the floor, based on
the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, the CAA requires the EPA to
undertake two different analyses, which
we refer to as the technology review and
the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, we must review the
technology-based standards and revise
them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the
residual risk review, we must evaluate
the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if
necessary, to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In conducting the
residual risk review, if the EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determines that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, it is not necessary
to revise the MACT standards pursuant
to CAA section 112(f).1 For more
information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 14984, April 6,
2018.
B. What is the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
NESHAP on April 11, 2002 (67 FR
17824). The standards are codified at 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. The WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
industry consists of facilities that use
formaldehyde-based resins to bond glass
fibers together to make wet-formed
fiberglass mat, which can be used as a
substrate for multiple roofing products,
as reinforcement for various plastic,
cement, and gypsum products, and in
miscellaneous specialty products.
Methanol is also present in some, but
not all, resins used to produce wetformed fiberglass mat. In a typical wetformed 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 remove
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 is
formaldehyde, which is classified as a
probable human carcinogen; and
methanol, which is not classified as a
carcinogen. The source category covered
by this MACT standard currently
includes seven facilities.
The affected source is each wetformed fiberglass mat drying and curing
oven. The NESHAP regulates emissions
1 The Court has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA
determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during
the residual risk rulemaking.’’).
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
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
new and existing drying and curing
ovens are: (1) A maximum
formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03
kilograms per megagram of wet-formed
fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds
per ton of wet-formed fiberglass mat
produced) or (2) a minimum of 96percent destruction efficiency of
formaldehyde. Thermal oxidizers are
used by facilities subject to the NESHAP
to control their drying and curing oven
exhausts.
C. What changes did we propose for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category in our April 6, 2018,
proposal?
On April 6, 2018, the EPA published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production NESHAP, that took into
consideration the RTR analyses (83 FR
14997, April 6, 2018). Based on the
residual risk analysis, we proposed that
risks from the source category are
acceptable, that the NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, and that a more stringent
standard is not necessary to prevent an
adverse environmental effect.
Accordingly, we did not propose
revisions to the numerical emission
limits based on our residual risk
analysis. Based on the technology
review, we proposed that there are no
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant
revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Accordingly, we did
not propose any changes under the
technology review. In addition, we
proposed amendments to the SSM
provisions and revisions to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the following 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. We also
proposed miscellaneous technical and
editorial changes.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA’s
determinations for the Wet-Formed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
Fiberglass Mat Production source
category pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(6) and (f)(2). This action also
finalizes other changes to the NESHAP,
including amendments to the SSM
provisions and a change to the proposed
definition of ‘‘shutdown’’ to reflect
comments we received on the proposal.
Other changes include revisions to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to require
electronic submittal of performance test
report results; submittal of semiannual
compliance reports for when deviations
from applicable standards occur; and
removal of parameter monitoring and
performance testing requirements
during periods when a non-HAP binder
is being used. We are also finalizing
miscellaneous technical and editorial
changes that we proposed in April 2018.
This action also reflects several changes
to certain aspects of the April 2018
proposal that are in response to
comments received during the public
comment period. These changes are
described in section IV of this preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
This section introduces the final
amendments to the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP
being promulgated pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). As proposed, we are
finalizing our finding that risks
remaining after implementation of the
existing MACT standards for this source
category are acceptable. Also as
proposed, we are finalizing the
determination that the current NESHAP
provides an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. Therefore, we are
not finalizing any revisions to the
numerical emission limits based on
these analyses conducted under CAA
section 112(f).
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
We determined that there are no
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant
revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Therefore, we are not
finalizing revisions to the MACT
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
We are finalizing proposed
amendments to the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP to
remove and revise provisions related to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6679
SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the 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 section 112
standards apply continuously.
As proposed, we have eliminated the
SSM exemption, which is contained in
40 CFR 63.2986(g)(1). Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has
established standards in this rule that
apply at all times. As explained at
proposal, we have also revised Table 2
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH (the
General Provisions applicability table),
in several respects. For example, we
have eliminated the incorporation of the
General Provisions’ requirement for a
source to develop an SSM plan. We
have also eliminated and revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that are related to the SSM
exemption as described in detail in the
proposed rule and summarized again
here.
In establishing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account
periods of startup and shutdown and,
for the reasons explained in the April
2018 proposal and below, has not
established alternate standards for those
periods.
As explained at proposal, periods of
startup, normal operations, and
shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
As also explained at proposal, because
thermal oxidizer controls are employed
during all periods that a drying and
curing oven is processing binderinfused fiberglass mat, there is no need
to establish separate formaldehyde
standards for periods of startup and
shutdown (83 FR 14998). We did,
however, propose definitions of startup
and shutdown for purposes of this
subpart. The proposed definitions
clarified that it is not the setting in 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 and cessation
of operation of the drying and curing of
any binder-infused fiberglass mat. We
also explained that it is this binderinfused fiberglass mat, not the ovens
themselves, that emit HAP. Therefore,
we found that it was appropriate to
establish definitions for startup and
shutdown based on the setting in and
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
6680
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
cessation of operation of the drying and
curing oven. Further, in response to
comments on our proposal, we have
made minor clarifications to the
definition of shutdown in the final rule
in order to account for the residence
time of the binder-infused fiberglass mat
in the oven, and to aid facilities in
establishing periods of shutdown when
emissions from the drying oven cease.
We have also revised definitions for
startup and shutdown to consistently
refer to the material being processed as
‘‘binder-infused fiberglass mat.’’ Finally,
we have added a definition of
‘‘maximum residence time’’ to 40 CFR
63.3004 and a formula that facilities
must use to determine the maximum
residence time for each production line.
This reflects the Agency’s response to
comments received on our proposal that
indicated shutdown would end when
the maximum residence time has
elapsed after binder-infused fiberglass
mat is no longer entering the oven.
Typically, residence times are of short
duration for wet-formed fiberglass mat
lines, and are on the order of less than
10 seconds to less than 1 minute. The
maximum residence time is the longest
time that a particular point on the
fiberglass mat could remain in the
drying and curing oven, and is based on
the length of the drying and curing oven
and the slowest line speed normally
operated on the line, excluding periods
of ramping up to speed during startup.
Air pollution controls continue to
operate through shutdown, and all
emissions from the ovens continue to be
routed to the air pollution control
equipment until shutdown is
completed.
With regard to malfunctions, the EPA
did not propose separate standards for
periods of malfunction. At proposal, we
explained our interpretation of CAA
section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of
malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112
standards. We noted that this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the
Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830
F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). The EPA
further explained that, ‘‘although no
statutory language compels EPA to set
standards for malfunctions, EPA has the
discretion to do so where feasible. 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’’ (83 FR
14999).
The EPA is not finalizing separate
standards for periods of malfunction.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
While we requested comment for work
practice standards during periods of
malfunction, and received some
information in support of such
standards, we did not receive sufficient
information on which to base a
malfunction standard.
As further explained at proposal, ‘‘[i]n
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
preventive 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’’ (83 FR 14999).
The following aspects for the SSM
provisions are being finalized as
proposed, with minor corrections and
clarifications.
1. 40 CFR 63.2986 General Duty
As discussed at proposal, we are
revising 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.’’ At proposal, we explained that 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions and
contains language that we consider no
longer necessary or appropriate in light
of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We proposed adding 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. We
further explained that the current
language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty
entails during periods of SSM, and that
with the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there would be no need to
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction
events in describing the general duty.
Therefore, the language the EPA
proposed for 40 CFR 63.2986(g) did not
include that language from 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1). These revisions are being
finalized as proposed, with the
exception of minor grammatical
corrections and clarifications.
Consistent with our proposal, we are
also revising 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.’’ As explained at proposal, 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
are either not necessary with the
elimination of the SSM exemption or
are redundant with the general duty
requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.2986.
2. SSM Plan
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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 recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan.
As noted at proposal, the EPA is
removing the SSM exemption.
Therefore, affected units will be subject
to an emission standard during such
events. We believe that 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.
3. Compliance with Standards
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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.’’ As explained at proposal, 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
revising standards in this rule to apply
at all times. This change means that
sources would no longer be exempt
from nonopacity standards during
periods of SSM.
4. 40 CFR 63.2992 Performance Testing
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising the General Provisions table
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
(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.’’ As explained at proposal, 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements and, in order to reflect the
removal of the SSM exemption, the EPA
proposed adding performance testing
requirements at 40 CFR 63.2992(e). The
revised regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restates the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being
considered ‘‘representative’’ for
purposes of performance testing and the
revised performance testing provisions
exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. Similar to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
the revisions to 40 CFR 63.2992(e)
specify that performance tests
conducted under this subpart should
not be conducted during malfunctions;
as noted at proposal, conditions during
malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating
conditions. We also proposed adding
language that would require the owner
or operator to record both the process
information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during
performance testing and an explanation
to support that such conditions
represent normal operation. We
explained that 40 CFR 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. We further explained
that the regulatory text the EPA is
adding to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the
requirement to record the information.
These revisions are being finalized as
proposed, with the exception of minor
grammatical corrections and
clarifications.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
5. Monitoring
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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 ‘‘no.’’ As explained at
proposal, 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)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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.’’ At proposal, we had explained
that the final sentence in 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions’ SSM plan requirement that
is no longer applicable. The EPA also
proposed adding text in 40 CFR
63.2994(a)(2) that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence
would be replaced with the following
sentence: ‘‘You should include the
program of corrective action in the plan
required under § 63.8(d)(2).’’
6. 40 CFR 63.2998 Recordkeeping
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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.’’ As explained at proposal, 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during
startup and shutdown. These
recordkeeping provisions are no longer
necessary with the removal of the SSM
exemption, and, instead, the EPA is
extending the requirements for
recordkeeping and reporting under
normal operations to startup and
shutdown. As also previously explained
in response to comments, we have
revised the definition of shutdown in
order to account for the residence time
of the binder-infused fiberglass mat in
the oven to help sources establish
periods of shutdown and to determine
when HAP emissions from ovens would
cease. In the absence of special
provisions applicable to startup and
shutdown, such as a startup and
shutdown plan, additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown
periods is now limited to records used
to establish the maximum residence
time that any binder-infused fiberglass
mat would remain in the drying and
curing oven and to determine the time
of shutdown. As discussed in section
III.C of this preamble, shutdown ends
when the maximum residence time has
elapsed after binder infused fiberglass
mat is no longer entering the oven. The
maximum residence time must be
determined for each production line.
Typically, residence times are very short
for wet-formed fiberglass mat lines, on
the order of less than 10 seconds to less
than 1 minute. Therefore, we are also
requiring facilities to maintain records
showing how the maximum residence
time was derived for each line.
Consistent with our proposal, we are
also revising the General Provisions
table (Table 2 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6681
HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii)
by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to
a ‘‘no.’’ At proposal, we explained that
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a
malfunction and we proposed adding
the same requirements to 40 CFR
63.2998(g). We noted, however, that the
proposed regulatory text differs from the
General Provisions given that 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii) requires the creation and
retention of a record of the occurrence
and duration of each malfunction of
process, air pollution control, and
monitoring equipment. Instead, we
proposed recordkeeping requirements
for any failure to meet an applicable
standard and also proposed requiring
that the source record the date, time,
and duration of the failure rather than
an ‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA also
proposed adding to 40 CFR 63.2998(g) 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. We also
provided examples of such methods,
which included product-loss
calculations, mass-balance calculations,
measurements when available, or
engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA further
proposed requiring sources to keep
records of information related to any
failure to meet applicable standards in
order 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 documents how the source met the
general duty requirement to minimize
emissions when the source failed to
meet an applicable standard.
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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.’’ As explained at proposal, when
applicable, this provision requires
sources to record actions taken during
SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. This
requirement is no longer appropriate
because SSM plans will no longer be
required. We further explained that the
requirement previously applicable
under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions
and record corrective actions would
now be applicable by reference to 40
CFR 63.2988(g).
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising the General Provisions table
(Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6682
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v)
by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to
a ‘‘no.’’ As explained at proposal, when
applicable, this provision requires
sources to record actions taken during
SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan. As
further explained, the requirement is no
longer appropriate because SSM plans
will no longer be required.
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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.’’ As explained at proposal, with the
elimination of the SSM exemption, 40
CFR 63.10(c)(15), which allows an
owner or operator to either use the
affected source’s SSM plan or keep
records to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM plan, specified
in 40 CFR 63.6(e), and the requirements
of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12), is
now superfluous. Consistent with our
proposal, the EPA is eliminating this
requirement because SSM plans are no
longer required.
7. 40 CFR 63.3000 Reporting
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising 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.’’ As explained at proposal, 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting
requirement, the EPA proposed adding
reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.3000(c). We explained that the
replacement language differs from the
General Provisions requirement in that
it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a
stand-alone report. Subject to the
correction described below, we are
promulgating language requiring
sources that fail to meet an applicable
standard at any time to report the
relevant information concerning such
events in a compliance report.
Compliance reporting on a quarterly
basis is currently required under the
existing NESHAP. We are changing this
reporting period from a quarterly (four
times a year) to a semiannual (twice a
year) basis, as discussed further below.
We are also correcting an error that
occurred at publication of the proposed
rule where the published rule text
inadvertantly included the same
proposed revisions for both 40 CFR
63.3000(c)(5) and (6), and did not read
as explained in the proposal (83 FR
15000). These provisions specify the
content requirements for semiannual
compliance reports before and after the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
compliance date for this final rule. We
did not receive any comments on the
proposed language for these provisions.
We are correcting 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5)
by including the correct language,
which specifies that the content
requirements of semiannual compliance
reports prior to the compliance date for
this final rule would include the
existing rule requirements. We are also
correcting 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(6) to
indicate that after the compliance date
for this rule, the report must contain the
number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including whether
the cause is unknown, 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.
As previously explained, examples of
such methods include product-loss
calculations, mass-balance calculations,
direct measurements, or engineering
judgment based on known process
parameters. It also includes calculations
for maximum residence time to reflect
revisions being made in the final rule in
response to comments on the proposed
definition of shutdown. The EPA is
promulgating 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
requirement to minimize emissions
during a failure to meet an applicable
standard.
As also proposed, we will no longer
require owners or operators to
determine whether actions taken to
correct a malfunction are consistent
with an SSM plan, because, as
previously discussed, such plans are no
longer required. The final amendments,
therefore, specify in 40 CFR 63.3000(d)
that the SSM reports (required by 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)) are no longer required
after the compliance dates for this rule.
Malfunction events will be reported in
otherwise required reports having
similar format and submittal
requirements, so these reporting
specifications are unnecessary and are
being removed.
8. Definitions
We are promulgating definitions of
‘‘Startup,’’ ‘‘Shutdown,’’ and
‘‘Maximum residence time’’ in 40 CFR
63.3004. The current rule relies on the
40 CFR part 63, subpart A, definitions
of startup and shutdown, which are
based on the setting in operation, and
cessation of operation, of the affected
source (i.e., drying and curing oven). As
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
previously explained in the proposal (83
FR 15001) and in this section, the
formaldehyde standards could only be
exceeded during periods that fiberglass
mat is being dried and cured in the
oven. As also previously explained,
because the EPA is requiring standards
in this rule to apply at all times, we are
promulgating definitions of startup and
shutdown based on these periods to
clarify that it is the commencing of
operation and cessation of operation of
the drying and curing of binder-infused
fiberglass mat, plus the maximum
residence time of that mat in the oven,
that defines shutdown for purposes of
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. We are
finalizing a defintion indicating that
shutdown occurs when binder-infused
fiberglass mat ceases to enter the oven,
in addition to the maximum residence
time that fiberglass mat remains in the
oven, as determined for each production
line. According to comments we
received at proposal, once the maximum
residence time has elapsed, the mat is
cured and dried, and is not emitting any
organic HAP; there are no emissions at
this point. We have also added a
definition for ‘‘maximum residence
time’’ and a formula for how the
residence time must be determined for
each production line (i.e., each drying
and curing oven). We have described
these changes in section III.C of this
preamble, and made minor clarifications
to definitions of both startup and
shutdown in response to comments on
our proposal, as described in section
IV.C of this preamble.
For the reasons described in the
preamble to the proposed rule, we are
also finalizing the proposed definition
of ‘‘Deviation’’ in 40 CFR 63.3004 to
remove language that differentiates
between normal operations, startup and
shutdown, and malfunction events. We
received no comments on the proposed
changes. The final rule also corrects a
publication error in the proposed rule.
The proposed rule, as published,
incorrectly included two different
definitions of ‘‘Deviation.’’ The final
rule provides definitions of ‘‘Deviation’’
both prior to and after the compliance
dates for this final rule. Specifically,
prior to the compliance dates for this
rule, 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; (2) fails to
meet any term or condition that is
adopted to implement an applicable
requirement in the subpart and that is
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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 the
subpart.
After the compliance dates for this
rule, deviation means any instance in
which an affected source subject to the
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 the subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any
affected source required to obtain such
a permit.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
D. What other changes have been made
to the NESHAP?
The EPA is promulgating revisions to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for this NESHAP
in the following 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)
parametric monitoring would no longer
be required during periods when a nonHAP binder is being used. These
provisions are being finalized as
proposed, with minor corrections and
clarifications.
Additionally, we proposed to reduce
parametric monitoring and recording for
facilities using non-HAP binders and
solicited comment on exempting
performance testing for such facilities.
Consistent with our proposal, we are
adopting the parametric monitoring
exemption for facilities using non-HAP
binders, as discussed in section III.D.2
of this preamble). Based on a review of
comments received, we are also
finalizing an exemption from
performance testing requirements for
drying and curing ovens that are subject
to a federally enforceable permit
requiring the use of only non-HAP
binders, which is discussed in section
III.D.3 of this preamble. We are also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
finalizing several clarifying revisions to
the rule, such as requirements for
submittal of performance test data,
which is discussed in section III.F of
this preamble. The requirements for
submittal of semiannual compliance
reports, parametric monitoring
requirements for facilities using nonHAP binders, exemption of performance
testing requirements for facilities that
are limited to the use of only non-HAP
binders, and technical and editorial
clarifications are discussed below in
this section.
1. Frequency of Compliance Reports
The EPA is revising 40 CFR
63.3000(c) to require that compliance
reports be submitted on a semiannual
basis in all instances, with minor
changes from proposal. 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. The final rule specifies
when facilities must begin transitioning
from quarterly to semiannual reporting
for deviations.
2. Parametric Monitoring and Recording
During Use of Binder Containing No
HAP
The EPA is promulgating the
provision 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 will 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 are requiring that
owners and operators 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 promulgating revisions to 40 CFR
63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 and
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH, and also promulgating a
definition of ‘‘Non-HAP binder’’ in 40
CFR 63.3004. As discussed in section
IV.D of this preamble, we have revised
the definition of ‘‘Non-HAP binder’’
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6683
from proposal to clarify that non-HAP
binder must meet the Office of Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA)
Hazard Communication Standard’s
criteria for disclosing composition or
ingredients in Section 3 of the safety
data sheet (SDS), except when the
manufacturer has withheld identifying
information of the chemical. The
affected source may not rely on a SDS
for a non-HAP binder where the
manufacturer withholds the specific
chemical identity, including the
chemical name, other specific
identification of a hazardous chemical,
or the exact percentage (concentration)
of the substance in a mixture from
Section 3 of the SDS. In addition, the
affected source may not withhold this
information when making the case that
a binder used is a non-HAP binder. See
section IV.D of this preamble for
additional information.
3. Exemption of Performance Testing for
Facilities Subject to Federally
Enforceable Permit Requirements
At proposal, the EPA solicited
comment on the exemption from
performance testing requirements for
drying and curing ovens that are subject
to a federally enforceable permit
requiring the use of only non-HAP
binders (83 FR 15005). The EPA
received supportive comments for this
exemption. Thus, we are promulgating
revisions to 40 CFR 63.2991 to provide
that drying and curing ovens using
exclusively non-HAP binders and that
are subject to a federally enforceable
permit limit for such non-HAP binders
are not required to conduct periodic
performance tests. This revision will
reduce burden for owners and operators
that have switched to using only nonHAP binders without any increase in
HAP emissions. Owners and operators
of drying and curing ovens that do not
have a federally-enforceable permit
limit and that are currently permitted to
use HAP-containing binders will still be
required to conduct periodic
performance testing, even if they are not
currently using binders that contain
HAP.
4. Technical and Editorial Changes
We are finalizing several clarifying
revisions to the final rule as described
in Table 2 of this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6684
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART HHHH
Section of subpart HHHH
Description of 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 IBR in paragraph (e) by replacing the reference to 40 CFR 63.3003 with, instead, 40
CFR 63.14.
• Amend paragraphs (a) and (b) and add new paragraph (d) to clarify the compliance dates for provisions related
to these amendments.
• Correct 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) 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–2) 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 the 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 Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (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 63.2985 ...................
40 CFR 63.2993 ...................
40 CFR 63.2999 ...................
40 CFR 63.3003 ...................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
E. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards
being promulgated in this action are
effective on February 28, 2019.
The compliance date for existing wetformed fiberglass mat drying and curing
ovens and drying and curing ovens
constructed or reconstructed after May
26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 is no
later than 180 days after February 28,
2019. As we stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule, we are allowing 180
days for owners and operators of such
affected sources to comply with the
rule, giving them time to read and
understand the amended rule
requirements; to install necessary
hardware and software, become familiar
with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically
through the EPA’s CEDRI, test electronic
submission capabilities, and reliably
employ electronic reporting; 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 for periods of
non-HAP binder use; and to update
their operation, maintenance, and
monitoring (OMM) plan to reflect the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
revised requirements. The compliance
date for wet-formed fiberglass mat
curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after April 6, 2018 is at
startup or February 28, 2019, whichever
is later.
F. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
The EPA is finalizing the proposed
requirement for owners and operators of
wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities to submit electronic copies of
certain required performance test
reports through EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. The
final rule requires that performance test
reports be submitted using the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). We are
finalizing these requirements as
proposed, with minor clarifications for
the written notification of delayed
reporting, as discussed in section IV.E of
this preamble.
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
For each issue, this section describes
what we proposed and what we are
finalizing for each issue, the EPA’s
rationale for the final decisions and
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the
EPA’s responses can be found in the
comment summary and response
document available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(f) for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source
category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we
conducted a risk review and presented
the results for the review, along with
our proposed decisions regarding risk
acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the April 6, 2018, proposed
rule for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category (83 FR
14984). The results of the risk
assessment are presented briefly in
Table 3 of this preamble and in more
detail in the residual risk document
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category in Support of the
November 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which is in the
docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
6685
TABLE 3—WET-FORMED FIBERGLASS MAT PRODUCTION INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE APRIL 2018
PROPOSAL
Estimated population at
increased risk of
cancer ≥ 1-in-1 million
Maximum individual
cancer risk
(in 1 million) 2
Number of
facilities 1
Based on
actual
emissions
level 2
7 ......................................
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
0.8
Based on
actual
emissions
level 2
1
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
0
60
Estimated annual
cancer incidence
(cases per year)
Based on
actual
emissions
level 2
0.0003
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
0.0009
Maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI 3
Based on
actual
emissions
level
Based on
allowable
emissions
level
0.006
0.009
Maximum screening
acute non-cancer HQ 4
Based on actual
emissions level
HQREL = 0.6 (formaldehyde).
1 Number
of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) value. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category is the respiratory target organ.
4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ) values.
HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the reference exposure level (REL). When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show
the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.
2 Maximum
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
3 Maximum
The results of the chronic inhalation
cancer risk assessment, based on actual
emissions, show the cancer maximum
individual risk (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 every
3,000 years. There were no cancer risks
above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted
from the seven facilities in this source
category. The maximum chronic
noncancer hazard index (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.
We also evaluated the cancer risk at
the maximum emissions allowed by the
MACT standard, or ‘‘MACT-allowable
emissions.’’ 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 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 one excess case
every 1,000 years. Based on MACTallowable emission rates, there were no
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million.
Table 3 of this preamble indicates that
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category, the
maximum hazard quotient (HQ) is 0.6,
driven by formaldehyde. We conducted
a screening analysis of the worst-case
acute HQ for every HAP that has an
acute dose-response value
(formaldehyde and methanol). Based on
actual emissions, the highest screening
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
acute HQ value was 0.6 (based on the
acute reference exposure level (REL) for
formaldehyde). The results showed that
no HQ values exceeded 1. Because none
of the screening HQ were greater than 1,
further refinement of the estimates was
not warranted.
An assessment of risk from facilitywide emissions was performed to
provide context for the source category
risks. The results of the facility-wide
(both MACT and non-MACT sources,
i.e., sources at the facility that are not
included in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
source category) 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 nonMACT sources. The total estimated
cancer incidence from the seven
facilities is 0.001 excess cancer cases
per year, or one excess case 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 nonMACT 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 sources at the
facility that were not included in the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Production
source category (non-MACT sources).
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 kilometers
(km) and also at populations living
within 50 km of the facilities, and we
found that no one is exposed to a cancer
risk at or above 1-in-1 million, or to a
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1. The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report titled, 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.
We weighed all health risk factors in
our risk acceptability determination,
and we proposed that the residual risks
from this source category are acceptable.
We then considered whether the
NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, and
whether more stringent standards were
necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect, by taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors. In determining
whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health,
we examined the same risk factors that
we investigated for our acceptability
determination and also considered the
costs, technological feasibility, and
other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might
reduce risk associated with emissions
from the source category. We proposed
that the 2002 Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production NESHAP requirements
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. Based on the
results of our environmental risk
screening assessment, we also proposed
that more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category?
Since proposal, neither the risk
assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed.
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6686
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
3. What key comments did we receive
on the risk review, and what are our
responses?
2. How did the technology review
change for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category?
We received comments in support of
and against the proposed risk review
and our determination that no revisions
were warranted under CAA section
112(f)(2). Comments that were not
supportive of the risk review were
considered at length. After review of
these comments, we determined that no
changes needed to be made to the
underlying risk assessment
methodology. The comments and our
specific responses can be found in the
document titled ‘‘Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk
and Technology Review,’’ which is
available in the docket for this action.
The technology review has not
changed since proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the risk
review?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s risk review and determined
that no changes to the review are
needed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we proposed that the
risks from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category are
acceptable, and the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Therefore,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we
are finalizing our risk review as
proposed.
B. Technology Review for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we
conducted a technology review, which
focused on identifying and evaluating
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies for control of
formaldehyde emissions from drying
and curing ovens at wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities. No
cost-effective developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies were
identified in our technology review to
warrant revisions to the standards. More
information concerning our technology
review is in the memorandum titled,
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production,
which is in the docket for this action,
and in the preamble to the proposed
rule (83 FR 14984).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
3. What key comments did we receive
on the technology review, and what are
our responses?
We received comments in support of
the proposed determination from the
technology review that no revisions
were warranted under CAA section
112(d)(6). We also received one
comment that asserted that cost
effectiveness should not be a
consideration when examining
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
We evaluated the comments and
determined that no changes regarding
our determination were needed. These
comments and our specific responses
can be found in the comment summary
and response document titled
‘‘Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production Risk and Technology
Review,’’ which is available in the
docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the technology review?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s technology review and
determined that no changes to the
review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that no cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies were identified in
our technology review to warrant
revisions to the standards. More
information concerning our technology
review, and how we evaluate cost
effectiveness, can be found in the
memorandum titled Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production, which is in
the docket for this action, and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
14984). Therefore, pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our
technology review as proposed.
2. How did the SSM provisions change
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category?
Since proposal, the SSM provisions
have not changed, with the following
exceptions. We have corrected a
publication error in the proposed
regulatory text for 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5),
as discussed in section III.C.7 of this
preamble. We have also clarified the
proposed definitions for ‘‘startup’’ and
‘‘shutdown’’ in the final rule to address
a comment received that requested use
of consistent terminology to refer to the
material being processed, and for
periods of shutdown, by associating it
with the maximum residence time
required for the curing and drying of
mat in an oven and specifying the
formula for calculation of maximum
residence time. We have revised the
definitions of ‘‘Shutdown’’ and
‘‘Startup’’ to read as set out in the
regulatory text at the end of this
document.
We have also added a definition for
‘‘maximum residence time,’’ which
reflects the longest duration that binderinfused fiberglass mat would remain in
the drying and curing oven and is
determined based on the length of the
drying and curing oven and the slowest
line speed for the normal operation of
an oven. The definition specifies a
formula for the calculation of the
maximum residence time as shown in
the regulatory text at the end of this
document.
1. What did we propose for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
3. What key comments did we receive
on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
Comment: Although we did not
propose standards for periods of
malfunction, one commenter initially
proposed that the Agency should
promulgate work practice standards for
malfunction events to address HAP
emissions from binder-infused fiberglass
mat that would remain in the oven
during such events. In follow-up
discussions of the potential
implementation of the requested work
practice standard with the EPA, the
commenter requested that the EPA
instead consider modifying the
definition of ‘‘shutdown.’’ 2 The
commenter asserted that the proposed
definition of ‘‘shutdown’’ could be
construed such that a shutdown period
may continue for a period long after
We proposed removing and revising
provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that
standards apply at all times. More
information concerning our proposal on
SSM can be found in the proposed rule
(83 FR 14984).
2 See letter from Reed B. Hitchcock, Asphalt
Roofers Manufacturing Association to Susan
Fairchild (EPA), ‘‘Re: Risk and Technology Review,
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH; Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2004–0309; Proposed Modification to Definition of
Shutdown,’’ September 21, 2018, in the docket for
this action.
C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
binder-infused fiberglass mat has dried
and emissions of organic HAP have
ceased. According to the commenter,
this would result in the potential for
‘‘indefinite deviations.’’ As an example,
the commenter provided that a power
failure could result in the prevention of
mat leaving the oven even after the mat
was cured and dried. The commenter
further explained that wet-formed
fiberglass mat lines operate at high
speeds with relatively short residence
times in the drying and curing oven
(ranging from less than 10 seconds to
less than 1 minute), during which the
mat is completely dried and cured. Air
pollution control devices are operated
during shutdown, and all emissions
from the curing and drying ovens are
routed to these devices. The commenter
requested that the EPA amend the final
definition of ‘‘shutdown’’ to clarify that
shutdown ends after mat ceases to enter
the oven and following the elapse of the
residence time. The requested
amendments would account for the time
period until the mat is completely cured
and emissions from the binder-infused
fiberglass mat are no longer occurring.
The commenter also recommended that
the EPA consider a definition for
‘‘maximum residence time’’ to clarify
how facilities could calculate the
maximum residence time for each
drying and curing oven. The commenter
also requested that the EPA revise the
proposed definitions of ‘‘startup’’ and
‘‘shutdown’’ to use consistent
terminology to refer to the material
being processed. The commenter
specifically requested that the EPA’s
proposed definition of ‘‘shutdown’’ be
revised to replace the phrase ‘‘any resin
infused binder’’ at the end of the
definition with ‘‘any binder-infused
fiberglass mat.’’
Response: We are finalizing the
commenter’s suggestions for
clarification of the definitions of
‘‘startup’’ and ‘‘shutdown,’’ and the
requested definition for ‘‘maximum
residence time.’’ The EPA also agrees
with commenters that the initially
requested work practice standards are
not appropriate for wet-formed
fiberglass mat production operations,
and consistent with proposal, is not
finalizing any standards for
malfunctions. We concur with the
commenter’s assessment that the binderinfused fiberglass mat entering the oven
is cured over a relatively quick period
(that may range from less than 10
seconds to less than 1 minute) and that
this period of time (the ‘‘residence
time’’) should be taken into account
when determining the cessation of the
operation period; for shutdown to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
complete, the binder infused fiberglass
mat must enter and remain in the oven
for the duration of the maximum
residence time. When the maximum
residence time is completed, no further
emissions of HAP occur as a result of
the wet-formed fiberglass mat
manufacturing process. We are
finalizing these suggested changes
accordingly. We are finalizing
provisions that the maximum residence
time should be established as the
longest time period (in seconds), during
normal operation, that a particular point
on the fiberglass mat remains in the
oven, as determined by the length of the
drying and curing oven (in feet), and the
slowest line speed during normal
operation (in feet per second), excluding
periods of ramping up to speed during
startup. This maximum residence time
may then be used to determine the time
of shutdown. See sections III.C and
IV.C.2 of this preamble for additional
information on the final definitions for
‘‘startup,’’ ‘‘shutdown,’’ and ‘‘maximum
residence time’’ and determining the
maximum residence time. We have also
revised 40 CFR 63.2998 to include a
requirement that facilities must
maintain records that show how the
maximum residence time was derived
for each production line.
Additional comments on the SSM
provisions and our specific responses to
those comments can be found in the
document titled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk
and Technology Review, which is
available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule (83 FR
14984) and in section III.C of this
preamble, we determined that these
amendments remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. Therefore,
we are finalizing the amendments to
remove and revise provisions related to
SSM, as proposed, with the exception of
clarifications to the definitions to
‘‘startup’’ and ‘‘shutdown,’’ and the
addition of a final definition for
‘‘maximum residence time,’’ as
discussed in this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6687
D. Other Revisions To Monitoring,
Performance Testing, and Reporting
Requirements for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category
1. What did we propose for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
We proposed several revisions to the
rule’s monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, including
revisions to the frequency of submittal
of compliance reports, revisions to
remove the requirement for parametric
monitoring for drying and curing ovens
where only a non-HAP binder is used,
and technical and editorial revisions.
We proposed to revise the frequency
of submittal of compliance reports when
deviations from applicable standards
occur. Currently, 40 CFR 63.3000(c)
requires owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat production
facilities to submit compliance reports
on a semiannual basis unless there are
deviations from emission limits or
operating limits. In those instances, the
rule required that compliance reports be
submitted on a quarterly basis. We
proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.3000(c) to
require that compliance reports be
submitted on a semiannual basis in all
instances.
We proposed revisions to 40 CFR
63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 to revise
requirements for owners and operators
to monitor and record the parameters
listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, during periods when a
non-HAP binder is being used. We
proposed 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),
in lieu of monitoring or recording the
parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH, owners and
operators would be required to record
the dates and times that production of
mat using a non-HAP binder began and
ended. We proposed harmonizing
revisions to Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, and a definition of
‘‘Non-HAP binder’’ to be added to 40
CFR 63.3004 to clearly identify periods
when the binder formulation being used
to produce mat does not contain any
HAP. We also solicited comments on
revising 40 CFR 63.2991 to exempt
performance testing requirements for
drying and curing ovens that are subject
to a federally enforceable permit
requiring the use of only non-HAP
binders.
We proposed several technical and
editorial revisions to 40 CFR 63.2984,
63.2993, and 63.2999. We also removed
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6688
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
and reserved 40 CFR 63.3003. The
proposed revisions included clarifying
references, updates to acceptable
reference methods that we are
incorporating by reference, updates to
clarify the format of records, and
revisions for consistency with updates
to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
2. How did the revisions and corrections
to monitoring, performance testing, and
reporting requirements change for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
Consistent with our proposal, we are
revising the frequency of submittal of
compliance reports when deviations
from applicable standards occur from
quarterly to semiannually. We are,
however, promulgating these revisions
with minor changes such as clarifying
40 CFR 63.3000(c)(1) to indicate the
date when the transition to semiannual
reporting should begin. We are also
correcting a typographical error in the
proposed introductory sentence of 40
CFR 63.3000(c)(6).
We are revising 40 CFR 63.2984,
63.2996, 63.2998, 63.3004 (definition of
‘‘Non-HAP binder’’), and Table 1 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to revise
requirements for owners and operators
to monitor and record the parameters
listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, during periods when a
non-HAP binder is being used, with
minor revisions. We are revising Table
1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to
apply footnote ‘‘4’’ to line 1 (‘‘Thermal
oxidizer temperature’’) and to line 2
(‘‘Other process or control device
parameters in your OMM plan’’).
Finally, we have revised the definition
of ‘‘Non-HAP binder’’ from proposal to
clarify that the binder must meet the
OSHA Hazard Communication
Standard, at 29 CFR 1910.1200(b),
criteria for disclosing composition or
ingredients in Section 3 of SDSs, except
when identifying information is
withheld. In such cases, an affected
source may not rely on an SDS for a
non-HAP binder where the
manufacturer has withheld the specific
chemical identity, including the
chemical name, other specific
identification of a hazardous chemical,
or the exact percentage (concentration)
of the substance in a mixture from
Section 3 of the SDS. Additionally, an
affected source may not withhold this
information when making the case that
a binder used is a non-HAP binder.
Since proposal, the technical and
editorial revisions to 40 CFR 63.2984,
63.2993, 63.2999, and 63.3003 have not
changed. We are, however, making
minor revisions such as grammatical
corrections or clarifications. For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
example, we are finalizing minor
grammatical edits (such as converting
passive voice to active voice) and
clarifications that do not change the
substantive content of the existing text.
These changes are not based on
comments on the proposed rule, but
rather include minor edits to 40 CFR
63.2987(a), 63.2989(a), 63.2991(a),
63.2992(e), 63.2994(a)(2), 63.2996(a),
63.2997(a) and (b), 63.2998(c) and (g),
63.2999(c), and 63.3000(e) through (g).
Based on comments to the proposed
rule, we have also identified and
implemented several additional
technical and editorial revisions, as
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this
preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the proposed revisions to
monitoring, performance testing, and
reporting requirements for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category, and what are our
responses?
a. Frequency of Compliance Reporting
Comment: One commenter supported
reducing the reporting frequency from
quarterly to semiannually. This
commenter requested that the EPA
clarify 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(1) to indicate
when the transition to semiannual
reporting should begin. The commenter
also noted that the EPA should correct
a typographical error in the introductory
paragraph of 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(6) from
‘‘paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this
section’’ to ‘‘paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through
(ix) of this section.’’
Response: We have clarified 40 CFR
63.3000(c)(1) by adding text stating that
if you deviate from the emission limits
in 40 CFR 63.2983 or the operating
limits in 40 CFR 63.2984 in the quarter
prior to February 28, 2019, you must
include this information in the report
for the first full semiannual reporting
period following February 28, 2019. We
also acknowledge the commenter’s
suggested correction to the introductory
sentence of 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(6) and
have revised this text as recommended.
b. Requirements for Facilities Using
Non-HAP Binders
Comment: One commenter supported
the proposed changes reducing
unnecessary regulatory burdens when
non-HAP binders are in use. This
commenter supported the EPA’s
proposal to exempt drying and curing
ovens that are subject to a federally
enforceable permit requiring the use of
only non-HAP binders from
performance testing requirements. The
commenter suggested that the EPA
could limit the scope of 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63.2981(a) to exclude such (non-HAP)
ovens from applicability under this
section of the rule. The commenter also
stated that the EPA should revise Table
1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to
apply footnote ‘‘d’’ to line 1 (‘‘Thermal
oxidizer temperature’’) and to line 2
(‘‘Other process or control device
parameters in your OMM plan’’) in
order to make effective the EPA’s intent
not to require monitoring or
recordkeeping for periods when binders
containing no HAP were in use.
Response: We acknowledge the
commenter’s support for the exemption
from performance testing requirements
for drying and curing ovens that are
subject to a federally enforceable permit
requiring the use of only non-HAP
binders. We did not receive any
comments objecting to this change and
are finalizing changes to the 40 CFR
63.2991 introductory text to exclude
drying and curing ovens using
exclusively non-HAP binders. The EPA
is not accepting the suggested text
changes to 40 CFR 63.2981(a)
recommended by the commenter
because facilities that use exclusively
non-HAP binders may still be subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, if they
are collocated with a major source.
However, such facilities would not be
required to conduct performance testing
and would only be subject to
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. We also acknowledge the
commenter’s suggested revisions to
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH, and we have made these edits,
including minor clarifications to
footnote ‘‘d’’ (new footnote ‘‘4’’) in the
final rule.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA revise the new definition
of the term ‘‘non-HAP binder’’ to refer
to the SDS, the term used in the current
OSHA Hazard Communication
Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200(b). This
same commenter further requested that
the EPA tie the definition of non-HAP
binder to the OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard’s criteria for
disclosing composition or ingredients in
Section 3 of SDSs.
Response: We acknowledge the
commenter’s suggested revisions and
have clarified the definition of ‘‘NonHAP binder’’ as provided by the
commenter. We have further revised
this definition to clarify that the affected
source may not rely on the SDS for a
non-HAP binder where the
manufacturer has withheld the specific
chemical identity, including the
chemical name, other specific
identification of a hazardous chemical,
or the exact percentage (concentration)
of the substance in a mixture from
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Section 3 of the SDS, or withheld this
information, when making the case that
a binder used is a non-HAP binder. The
definition of ‘‘Non-HAP binder’’ has
been revised as set out in the regulatory
text at the end of this document.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
c. Miscellaneous Corrections or
Clarifications Recommended by
Commenters
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA revise 40 CFR 63.2985(a)
and (b) to specify when the compliance
dates for the SSM requirements, the
electronic reporting requirements, and
all other requirements take effect.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenter and has clarified 40 CFR
63.2985 of the final rule to specify when
the compliance dates for new provisions
apply. Specific compliance dates for
individual provisions are included in 40
CFR 63.2986, 63.2998, 63.3000, 40 CFR
63.3004, and Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH. In general, we are
providing for 180 days for existing
sources to comply with the revised rule
requirements. We are also finalizing
proposed changes to 40 CFR 63.2985(d)
that require new or reconstructed drying
and curing ovens that commenced
operation between the date of the
proposal and the date of the final rule
to comply on the effective date of the
final rule or startup (whichever is later).
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the EPA remove the definition of
‘‘binder application vacuum exhaust’’
from 40 CFR 63.3004, as this term is not
used in the standard as proposed.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenter that the definition for
‘‘binder application vacuum exhaust’’ is
no longer relevant for the subpart and
has removed the definition from the
final rule.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the EPA revise Table 2 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH, to clarify that
only 40 CFR 63.14(b)(2) and (3) apply to
subpart HHHH, rather than all of 40 CFR
63.14.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenter’s recommended revision to
Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH, and has revised the table entry
for ‘‘§ 63.14’’ accordingly.
Additional comments on the revisions
to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reportng provisions and our specific
responses to those comments can be
found in the comment summary and
response document titled Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Risk and Technology Review, which is
available in the docket for this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the revisions to
monitoring, performance testing, and
reporting requirements?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s proposed amendments to the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions for this subpart,
and the proposed technical and editorial
corrections. These comments were
generally supportive, and requested
only minor clarifications and
corrections to the proposed text. We are
finalizing these amendments as
proposed, with the exception of the
minor changes discussed in this section.
Additionally, we solicited comments
on revising 40 CFR 63.2991 to exempt
drying and curing ovens that are subject
to a federally enforceable permit
requiring the use of only non-HAP
binders from performance testing
requirements. We received only
supportive comments on this potential
change. We are, therefore, promulgating
changes to the 40 CFR 63.2991
introductory text to exclude drying and
curing ovens using exclusively
non-HAP binders from meeting the
requirements of this section. Facilities
that use a combination of HAP and nonHAP binders would continue to be
required to conduct performance tests as
currently required under the subpart.
E. Requirements for Submission of
Performance Tests for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category
1. What did we propose for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
We proposed amendments that would
require owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat drying and curing
ovens to submit electronic copies of
certain required performance test
reports. More information concerning
these proposed revisions is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
14984).
2. How did the requirements for
submission of performance tests change
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category?
Since proposal, the requirement for
owners and operators of wet-formed
fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens
to submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports has
not changed. The EPA is requiring
owners and operators of wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities to
submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports
through the EPA’s CDX using CEDRI.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6689
The final rule requires that performance
test results be submitted using the ERT.
The electronic submittal of the reports
addressed in this rulemaking will
increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports; is in keeping
with current trends in data availability
and transparency; will further assist in
the protection of public health and the
environment; will improve compliance
by facilitating the ability of regulated
facilities to demonstrate compliance
with requirements, and by facilitating
the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and
the EPA to assess and determine
compliance; and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated
air agencies, and the EPA. 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 the affected
facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the
public. For a more thorough discussion
of electronic reporting, see the
memorandum titled Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, which is available in Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309.
3. What key comments did we receive
on submission of performance tests, and
what are our responses?
We received comments in support of
and against the proposed requirement
for owners and operators to submit
electronic copies of performance test
reports. Generally, the comments that
were not supportive of the proposed
requirements to submit performance
tests electronically expressed concern
that the requirements could require
duplicative or burdensome reporting, or
expressed concerns regarding delayed
reporting requirements for sources to
take in cases of events that may cause
a delay in reporting. After review of
these comments, we determined that no
changes are necessary. The comments
and our specific responses can be found
in the document titled Summary of
Public Comments and Responses for
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Risk and Technology Review, which is
available in the docket for this action.
A commenter requested that the EPA
clarify the written notification of
delayed reporting requirement in the
proposed amendment to 40 CFR
63.3000(f). In response to this request,
the EPA has revised the language in 40
CFR 63.3000(f) to state that an owner or
operator must provide information on
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6690
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
the date(s) and time(s) either CDX or
CEDRI is unavailable when a user
attempts to gain access in the 5 business
days prior to the submission deadline.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for submission of performance
tests?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s proposed amendments
requiring owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat drying and curing
ovens to submit electronic copies of
certain required performance test
reports. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we determined that these
amendments increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and improve
data accessibility. More information
concerning the proposed requirement
for owners and operators of wet-formed
fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens
to submit electronic copies of certain
required performance test reports is in
the preamble to the proposed rule (83
FR 14984) and the document, Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Risk and Technology Review, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Therefore, we are finalizing our
approach for submission of performance
tests, as proposed.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
A. What are the affected facilities?
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 these final amendments. The
basis of our estimate of affected facilities
is provided in the memorandum titled
Wet-Formed Fiberglass: Residual Risk
Modeling File Documentation, 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 finalizing revisions to the emission
limits, we do not anticipate any air
quality impacts as a result of the final
rule’s amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The seven wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities that would be
subject to the final amendments would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 net costs
associated with the final requirements
are estimated to be $200 per year in
each of the 3 years following
promulgation of amendments. This
estimated total annual cost is comprised
of estimated annual costs of about
$1,390, which are offset by the
estimated annual cost savings of about
$1,190. The EPA believes that the seven
wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities which are known to be subject
to the NESHAP can meet the final
requirements without incurring
additional capital or operational costs.
Therefore, the only costs associated
with the final amendments are related to
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs.
For further information on the
requirements being finalized, see
sections III and IV of this preamble. For
further information on the costs and
cost savings associated with the final
requirements, see the memorandum
titled Cost Impacts of Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and
Technology Review (Final Rule), and the
document, Supporting Statement for
NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production (Final Rule), which are both
available in the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted above, the nationwide
annual costs associated with the final
requirements are estimated to be
approximately $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 promulgated, see the
memorandum titled Final 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 final amendments, we believe that
the action, if finalized, would result in
improvements to the rule. Specifically,
the final amendment requiring
electronic submittal of performance test
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
final amendments reducing parameter
monitoring and recording and
performance testing requirements when
non-HAP binder is being used to
produce mat will reduce burden for
regulated facilities during such periods,
while continuing to protect public
health and the environment. See section
IV.D of this preamble for more
information.
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, 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. The
results of this analysis indicated 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.
The documentation for this decision
is contained in section IV.A of the
preamble to the proposed rule and the
technical report titled 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.
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections
IV.A and B of this preamble and further
documented in the risk report titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category in Support of the
November 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this final rule have been submitted
for approval to OMB under the PRA.
The information collection request (ICR)
document that the EPA prepared has
been assigned EPA ICR number 1964.09.
You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
We are finalizing 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, and
performance testing requirements
during use of binder containing no HAP.
We also included a review of the
amended rule by affected facilities in
the updated ICR for this final 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
final 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 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. When
OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will
announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
activities contained in this 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 titled Final 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. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6691
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 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 B and sections IV.A and B of
this preamble, and further documented
in the risk report titled, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category in Support of the November
2018 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule, which is 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. The EPA has decided to use
EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 316, 318,
and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, are used to
determine the gas flow rate which is
used with the concentration of
formaldehyde to calculate the mass
emission rate. While the EPA identified
11 voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
as being potentially applicable as
alternatives to EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A,
and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, the Agency is
not using them. The use of these VCS
would be impractical because of their
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6692
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation data, and/or other important
technical and policy considerations.
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).
The EPA conducted a search to identify
potentially applicable VCS. However,
the Agency identified no such
standards, and none were brought to its
attention in comments. Therefore, the
EPA has decided to use Methods 316,
318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
Results of the search are documented
in the memorandum titled, Voluntary
Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production,
which is available in the docket for this
action. Additional information can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/emc/emcpromulgated-test-methods.
The EPA is also promulgating
revisions to 40 CFR 63.2984 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), and
revising the text regarding the existing
IBR (chapters 3 and 5 of ‘‘Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
Practice’’ (23rd Edition)) by updating
the reference to 40 CFR 63.14. These
methods provide guidance on the
capture and conveyance of
formaldehyde emissions from each
drying and curing oven to the thermal
oxidizer. Owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat production
facilities may continue to use the
existing reference (23rd edition), or the
updated method (27th edition) may be
obtained from American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH), Customer Service Department,
1330 Kemper Meadow Drive,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45240, telephone
number (513) 742–2020. In addition,
owners and operators may inspect a
copy at U.S. EPA Library, 109 TW
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, phone (919)
541–0094.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 titled
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.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 20, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended 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 paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to read
as follows:
■
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(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, and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RRR, and 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) and (4), (b),
and (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 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.
*
*
*
*
*
(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
are 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 paragraphs (a) and (b) and (c)
introductory text and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.2985 When do I have to comply with
these standards?
(a) Existing drying and curing ovens
must be in compliance with this subpart
no later than April 11, 2005, except as
otherwise specified in this section and
§§ 63.2986, 63.2998, 63.3000, and
63.3004 and Table 2 to this subpart.
(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, except as otherwise specified in
this section and §§ 63.2986, 63.2998,
63.3000, and 63.3004 and Table 2 to this
subpart.
(c) If your facility is an area source
that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP, the following
apply:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Drying and curing ovens
constructed or reconstructed after April
6, 2018 must be in compliance with this
subpart at startup or by February 28,
2019 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?
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(g) You must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Before August 28, 2019, existing
drying and curing ovens and drying and
curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and
before April 7, 2018 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 August 27, 2019,
affected sources must be in compliance
with the emission limits in § 63.2983
and the operating limits in § 63.2984 at
all times, including periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction. Affected
sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018, must
comply with all requirements of the
subpart, no later than February 28, 2019
or upon startup, whichever is later.
(2) Before August 28, 2019, existing
drying and curing ovens and drying and
curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and
before April 9, 2018 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 August 27, 2019, for
such affected sources, and after
February 28, 2019 for affected sources
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018, 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 you are in
compliance with the emissions limits
required by this subpart. The
Administrator will base the
determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation
and maintenance requirements 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 August 28, 2019, for each
existing source and for each new or
reconstructed source for which
construction commenced after May 26,
2000 and before April 9, 2018, you must
maintain your 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 for such affected
sources after August 27, 2019. No
startup, shutdown, or malfunction plan
is required for any affected source that
commences construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
6. Section 63.2987 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 63.2987 What must my operation,
maintenance, and monitoring (OMM) plan
include?
(a) You must prescribe the monitoring
that will be performed to ensure
compliance with these emission
limitations. Table 1 to this subpart lists
the minimum monitoring requirements.
Your plan must specify the items listed
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Your plan must specify the
recordkeeping procedures to document
compliance with the emissions and
operating limits. Table 1 to this subpart
establishes the minimum recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6693
7. Section 63.2989 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
■
§ 63.2989
How do I change my OMM plan?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) To revise the ranges or levels
established for your operating limits in
§ 63.2984, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Section 63.2991 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 63.2991 When must I conduct
performance tests?
Except for drying and curing ovens
subject to a federally enforceable permit
that requires the exclusive use of nonHAP binders, you must conduct a
performance test for each drying and
curing oven subject to this subpart
according to the provisions in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section:
(a) Initially. You must conduct a
performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance and to establish operating
parameter limits and ranges to be used
to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the emission standards no later
than 180 days after the applicable
compliance date specified in § 63.2985.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 63.2992 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b), (d), 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).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) During the performance test, you
must monitor and record the operating
parameters that you will use to
demonstrate continuous compliance
after the test. These parameters are
listed in Table 1 to this subpart.
(e) You must conduct performance
tests under conditions that are
representative of the performance of the
affected source. 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 record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you
must make available to the
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6694
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 63.2993 is revised to read
as follow:
§ 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.
(f) Use the method contained in
appendix A to this subpart or the resin
purchase specification and the vendor
specification sheet for each resin lot for
determining the free-formaldehyde
content in the urea-formaldehyde resin.
(g) Use the method in appendix B to
this subpart for determining product
loss-on-ignition.
■ 11. Section 63.2994 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
§ 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 parameter monitoring
system (CPMS) quality control program
that includes written procedures for
CPMS 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
subpart, to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator. If you revise the
performance evaluation plan, 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. You
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
should include the program of
corrective action in the plan required
under § 63.8(d)(2).
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation
of the CPMS according to § 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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. 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 to this subpart and any
other parameters specified in your
OMM plan. You must monitor the
parameters, at a minimum, at the
corresponding frequencies listed in
Table 1 to 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 to
this subpart.
■ 13. Section 63.2997 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (b) to read as follows:
§ 63.2997 What are the requirements for
monitoring devices?
(a) If you control formaldehyde
emissions using a thermal oxidizer, you
must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) If you use process modifications or
a control device other than a thermal
oxidizer to control formaldehyde
emissions, you must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate devices to
monitor the parameters established in
your OMM plan at the frequency
established in the plan.
■ 14. Section 63.2998 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the introductory text,
paragraphs (a) and (c), (e) introductory
text, and (f);
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (g) as
paragraph (h); and
■ c. Adding paragraphs (g) and (i).
The revisions and additions 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 (i) 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.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(c) During periods when the binder
formulation being applied contains
HAP, records of values of monitored
parameters listed in Table 1 to this
subpart to show continuous compliance
with each operating limit specified in
Table 1 to this subpart. If you do not
monitor the parameters in Table 1 to
this subpart during periods when using
non-HAP binder, you must record the
dates and times that production of mat
using non-HAP binder began and ended.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Before August 28, 2019, for
existing drying and curing ovens and
drying and curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and
before April 7, 2018, if an operating
parameter deviation occurs, you must
record:
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Before August 28, 2019, for existing
drying and curing ovens and drying and
curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and
before April 7, 2018, keep all records
specified in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
related to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Records specified in
§ 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) are not
required to be kept after August 27,
2019 for existing or new drying and
curing ovens.
(g) After February 28, 2019 for
affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018, and after August 27, 2019
for all other affected sources, 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 to return the operating
parameter to the limit or to within the
range specified in the OMM plan, and
the dates and times at which corrective
actions were initiated and completed.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Records showing how the
maximum residence time was derived.
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
15. 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) You may maintain any records that
you submitted electronically via the
EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) 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 onsite
compliance evaluation.
■ 16. Section 63.3000 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(1) and (4), (c)(5)
introductory text, and (c)(5)(viii) and
(ix);
■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(6);
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (d) and (e)
as paragraph (e) and (d), respectively,
and revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (e) and (d); and
■ e. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 63.3000 What notifications and reports
must I submit?
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(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 March 1, 2019, as required
by § 63.10(e)(3), you must begin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
submitting quarterly compliance reports
if you deviate from the emission limits
in § 63.2983 or the operating limits in
§ 63.2984. After February 28, 2019, you
are not required to submit quarterly
compliance reports. If you deviate from
the emission limits in § 63.2983 or the
operating limits in § 63.2984 in the
quarter prior to February 28, 2019, you
must include this information in the
report for the first full semiannual
reporting period following February 28,
2019.
*
*
*
*
*
(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 August 28,
2019, for existing drying and curing
ovens and drying and curing ovens
constructed or reconstructed after May
26, 2000 and before April 7, 2018, if
there was a deviation from the emission
limit in § 63.2983 or an operating limit
in § 63.2984, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)
through (ix) of this section:
*
*
*
*
*
(viii) A brief description of the
associated process units.
(ix) A brief description of the
associated continuous parameter
monitoring system.
(6) Deviations. For affected sources
that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018, after
February 28, 2019, and after August 27,
2019 for all other affected sources, 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)(6)(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).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6695
(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 (including unknown
cause, if applicable), 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
associated process units.
(ix) A brief description of the
associated continuous parameter
monitoring system.
(d) Startup, shutdown, malfunction
reports. Before August 28, 2019, for
existing drying and curing ovens and
drying and curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and
before April 7, 2018, if you have a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction
during the semiannual reporting period,
you must submit the reports specified
§ 63.10(d)(5). No startup, shutdown, or
malfunction plan is required for any
affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018.
(e) 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 that you will
include 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.
For affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018, beginning February 28,
2019, and beginning no later than
August 27, 2019 for all other affected
sources, you must submit the results
following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) For data collected using test
methods supported by the EPA’s
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
6696
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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/)). You must submit
performance test data 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 you are
submitting under paragraph (e)(1) is
confidential business information (CBI),
you must submit a complete file
generated through the use of the EPA’s
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 disk, flash drive or other
commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. You must clearly
mark the electronic medium as CBI and
mail 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. You must submit the same
ERT or alternate file with the CBI
omitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX
as described in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section.
(f) Claims of EPA system outage. If
you are required to electronically
submit a report through the CEDRI in
the EPA’s CDX, you may assert a claim
of EPA outage for failure to timely
comply with the reporting requirement.
To assert a claim of EPA system outage,
you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (7)
of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be
precluded from accessing CEDRI and
submitting a required test report within
the time prescribed due to an outage of
either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX Systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred
within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date that the
submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or
unplanned.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
(4) 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 has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX
or CEDRI was accessed and the system
was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(6) 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.
(7) In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as
soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(g) Claims of force majeure. If you are
required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX,
you may assert a claim of force majeure
for failure to timely comply with the
reporting requirement. To assert a claim
of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if 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 five business
days prior to the date the submission is
due. 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 requirements 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).
(2) 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 has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the
Administrator:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(i) A written description of the force
majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(4) 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.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting
must occur as soon as possible after the
force majeure event occurs.
■ 17. Section 63.3001 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.3001 What sections of the general
provisions apply to me?
You must comply with the
requirements of the general provisions
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as
specified in Table 2 of this subpart.
§ 63.3003
[Removed and Reserved]
18. Section 63.3003 is removed and
reserved.
■ 19. Section 63.3004 is amended by:
■ a. Removing the definition for ‘‘Binder
application vacuum exhaust’’.
■ b. Revising the definition for
‘‘Deviation’’; and
■ c. Adding definitions for ‘‘Maximum
residence time’’, ‘‘Non-HAP binder’’,
‘‘Shutdown’’, and ‘‘Startup’’ in
alphabetical order.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 63.3004
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Deviation means:
(1) Before August 28, 2019, any
instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or
operator of such a source:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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
(iii) 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.
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
(2) After February 28, 2019 for
affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018, and after August 27, 2019
for all other affected sources, any
instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or
operator of such a source:
(i) 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
(ii) 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.
*
*
*
*
*
Maximum residence time means the
longest time, during normal operation
and excluding periods of ramping up to
speed during startup, that a particular
point on the fiberglass mat remains in
the drying and curing oven. It is
determined for each line by the
equation:
T = L/S
Where:
T is the residence time, in seconds;
L is the length of the drying and curing oven,
in feet; and
S is the slowest line speed normally operated
on the line, excluding periods of
ramping up to speed during startup, in
feet per second.
Non-HAP binder means a binder
formulation that does not contain any
substance that is required to be listed in
Section 3 of a safety data sheet (SDS)
pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) and
that is a HAP as defined in section
112(b) of the Clean Air Act. In
designating a non-HAP binder under
this subpart, you may not rely on the
SDS for a binder where the
manufacturer has withheld the specific
chemical identity, including the
chemical name, other specific
identification of a hazardous chemical,
or the exact percentage (concentration)
of the substance in a mixture from
Section 3 of the SDS. You may not
withhold this information when making
the case that the binder is a non-HAP
binder for the purposes of § 63.2996.
*
*
*
*
*
6697
Shutdown after February 28, 2019 for
affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018, and after August 27, 2019
for all other affected sources, means the
cessation of operation of the drying and
curing of any binder-infused fiberglass
mat for any purpose. Shutdown ends
when the maximum residence time has
elapsed after binder-infused fiberglass
mat ceases to enter the drying and
curing oven.
Startup after February 28, 2019 for
affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018, and after August 27, 2019
for all other affected sources, means the
setting in operation of the drying and
curing of binder-infused fiberglass mat
for any purpose. Startup begins when
binder-infused fiberglass mat enters the
oven to be dried and cured for the first
time or after a shutdown event.
*
*
*
*
*
20. Table 1 to subpart HHHH of part
63 is revised to read as follows:
■
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:
And record for the monitored parameter:
1. Thermal oxidizer temperature 1 4 ....................
2. Other process or control device parameters
specified in your OMM plan 2 4.
3. Urea-formaldehyde resin solids application
rate 4.
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 4 .................
5. Loss-on-ignition 3 4 ..........................................
6. UF-to-latex ratio in the binder 3 4 ....................
7. Weight of the final mat product per square
(lb/roofing square) 3 4.
8. Average nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass
mat production rate (roofing square/h) 3 4.
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.
1 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.
4 You are not required to monitor or record these parameters during periods when using a non-HAP binder. If you do not monitor these parameters during periods when using a non-HAP binder, you must record the dates and times that production of mat using the non-HAP binder began
and ended.
2 Required
3 These
21. Table 2 to subpart HHHH of part
63 is revised to read as follows:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
■
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) ...............
General Applicability ..........................
............................................................
............................................................
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
Explanation
[Reserved].
28FER1
6698
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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
§ 63.1(a)(9) ......................
§ 63.1(a)(10)–(14) ...........
§ 63.1(b) ..........................
§ 63.1(c)(1) ......................
............................................................
............................................................
Initial Applicability Determination .......
Applicability After Standard Established.
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
Applicability of Permit Program .........
Definitions ..........................................
Units and Abbreviations ....................
Prohibited Activities ...........................
............................................................
............................................................
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.
............................................................
............................................................
Existing Sources Dates .....................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
General Duty to Minimize Emissions
No ......................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
[Reserved].
Yes .....................................................
No ......................................................
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
Yes .....................................................
Yes.
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
Some plants may be area sources.
[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) ..........................
§ 63.5(e) ..........................
§ 63.5(f) ...........................
§ 63.6(a) ..........................
§ 63.6(b)(1)–(5) ...............
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
§ 63.6(b)(6) ......................
§ 63.6(b)(7) ......................
§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................
§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................
§ 63.6(c)(5) ......................
§ 63.6(d) ..........................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..................
Requirement to Correct Malfunctions
As Soon As Possible.
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) .................
§ 63.6(e)(2) ......................
§ 63.6(e)(3) ......................
Operation and Maintenance Requirements.
............................................................
SSM Plan Requirements ...................
§ 63.6(f)(1) .......................
SSM Exemption .................................
§ 63.6(f)(2) and (3) ..........
Compliance with Non–Opacity Emission Standards.
Alternative Non–Opacity Emission
Standard.
§ 63.6(g) ..........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Explanation
[Reserved].
Additional definitions in § 63.3004.
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
Yes .....................................................
No ......................................................
Yes.
No ......................................................
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Yes .....................................................
No ......................................................
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Yes.
Yes .....................................................
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
[Reserved].
§ 63.2985 specifies dates.
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
See § 63.2986(g) for general duty requirement.
§§ 63.2984 and 63.2987 specify additional requirements.
[Reserved].
EPA retains approval authority.
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
6699
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
Explanation
§ 63.6(h) ..........................
Compliance
with
Opacity/Visible
Emissions Standards.
No ......................................................
Subpart HHHH does not specify
opacity or visible emission standards.
§ 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ...............
§ 63.6(i)(15) .....................
§ 63.6(i)(16) .....................
§ 63.6(j) ...........................
§ 63.7(a) ..........................
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.7(d) ..........................
§ 63.7(e)(1) ......................
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.
§ 63.7(b) ..........................
§ 63.7(c) ..........................
§ 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) .................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(4) ................
§ 63.8(c)(5) ......................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Yes .....................................................
Yes .....................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
Yes.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Yes.
Continuous
Monitoring
System
(CMS) Operation and Maintenance.
Requirement to Develop SSM Plan No, for new or reconstructed sources
for CMS.
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
............................................................ Yes.
Continuous Opacity Monitoring Sys- No ......................................................
tem (COMS) Procedures.
§ 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ................
§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2) .........
§ 63.8(d)(3) ......................
............................................................
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.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
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) ..........................
Data Reduction ..................................
Notification Requirements—Applicability.
Initial Notifications ..............................
Request for Compliance Extension ...
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.9(b) ..........................
§ 63.9(c) ..........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
[Reserved].
See § 63.2992(c).
§§ 63.2991–63.2994 specify additional requirements.
EPA retains approval authority
[Reserved].
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.
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
6700
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
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
§ 63.9(d) ..........................
New Source Notification for Special
Compliance Requirements.
Notification of Performance Test .......
Notification of Visible Emissions/
Opacity Test.
§ 63.9(e) ..........................
§ 63.9(f) ...........................
Yes.
No ......................................................
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.
Recordkeeping of Occurrence and
Duration of Startups and Shutdowns.
No ......................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) .................
Yes .....................................................
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Yes.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................
Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a
Standard.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ...............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ..
Maintenance Records ........................
Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions
During SSM.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ...............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .....
§ 63.10(b)(3) ....................
§ 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) ..................
Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions
Other CMS Requirements .................
Recordkeeping requirement for applicability determinations.
Additional CMS Recordkeeping ........
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
Use of SSM Plan ...............................
§ 63.10(d)(1) ....................
General Reporting Requirements ......
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
No ......................................................
Yes.
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Yes .....................................................
§ 63.10(d)(2) ....................
Performance Test Results .................
Yes .....................................................
§ 63.10(d)(3) ....................
Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations.
No ......................................................
§ 63.10(d)(4) ....................
Progress Reports Under Extension of
Compliance.
SSM Reports .....................................
Yes.
§ 63.10(d)(5) ....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Explanation
Yes.
§ 63.9(g)(1) ......................
§ 63.9(g)(2)–(3) ...............
§ 63.10(b)(1) ....................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Applies to subpart HHHH
No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
Yes, for all other affected sources
before August 28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
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(g) for recordkeeping
requirements for an affected
source that fails to meet an applicable standard.
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
§ 63.3000 includes additional requirements.
§ 63.3000 includes additional requirements.
Subpart HHHH does not specify
opacity or visible emission standards.
See § 63.3000(c) for malfunction reporting requirements.
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
6701
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
Explanation
§ 63.10(e)(1) ....................
Additional CMS Reports—General ....
No ......................................................
Subpart HHHH does not require
CEMS.
§ 63.10(e)(2) ....................
Reporting results of CMS performance evaluations..
Excess Emission/CMS Performance
Reports..
COMS Data Reports .........................
Yes.
§ 63.10(e)(3) ....................
§ 63.10(e)(4) ....................
No ......................................................
§ 63.10(f) .........................
§ 63.11 .............................
Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ......
Control Device Requirements—Applicability..
Yes .....................................................
No ......................................................
§ 63.12 .............................
§ 63.13 .............................
§ 63.14 .............................
State Authority and Delegations ........
Addresses ..........................................
Incorporation by Reference ...............
Yes.
Yes.
Yes .....................................................
§ 63.15 .............................
Availability of Information/Confidentiality.
Yes.
category (commercial) permitted vessels
and Highly Migratory Species (HMS)
Charter/Headboat category permitted
vessels with a commercial sale
endorsement when fishing
commercially for BFT.
[FR Doc. 2019–01685 Filed 2–27–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
DATES:
50 CFR Part 635
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[Docket Nos. 120328229–4949–02 and
180117042–8884–02]
Sarah McLaughlin, 978–281–9260,
Uriah Forrest-Bulley, 978–675–2154, or
Larry Redd, 301–427–8503.
Effective February 25, 2019,
through December 31, 2019.
RIN 0648–XG839
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; annual
adjustment of Atlantic bluefin tuna
Purse Seine and Reserve category
quotas; inseason quota transfer from the
Reserve category to the General
category.
AGENCY:
NMFS is adjusting the
Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) Purse Seine
and Reserve category quotas for 2019, as
it has done annually since 2015. NMFS
also is transferring 25 metric tons (mt)
of BFT quota from the Reserve category
to the General category January 2019
period (from January 1 through March
31, 2019, or until the available subquota
for this period is reached, whichever
comes first). The transfer to the General
category is based on consideration of the
regulatory determination criteria
regarding inseason adjustments and
applies to Atlantic tunas General
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Yes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Feb 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations implemented under the
authority of the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by
persons and vessels subject to U.S.
jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part
635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S.
BFT quota recommended by the
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
among the various domestic fishing
categories, per the allocations
established in the 2006 Consolidated
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan (2006
Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058,
October 2, 2006), as amended by
Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR
71510, December 2, 2014). NMFS is
required under ATCA and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S.
fishing vessels with a reasonable
opportunity to harvest the ICCATrecommended quota.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
See § 63.14(b)(2) and (3) for applicability requirements.
Annual Adjustment of the BFT Purse
Seine and Reserve Category Quotas
In 2018, NMFS implemented a final
rule that established the U.S. BFT quota
and subquotas consistent with ICCAT
Recommendation 17–06 (83 FR 53191,
October 11, 2018). As a result, based on
the currently codified U.S. quota of
1,247.86 mt (not including the 25 mt
allocated by ICCAT to the United States
to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic
longline fisheries in the Northeast
Distant Gear Restricted Area), the
baseline Purse Seine, General, and
Reserve category quotas are codified as
219.5 mt, 555.7 mt, and 29.5 mt,
respectively. See § 635.27(a). For 2019
to date, NMFS has made the following
inseason quota transfers: 19.5 mt from
the General category December 2019
subquota period to the January 2019
subquota period (83 FR 67140,
December 28, 2018) and 26 mt from the
Reserve category to the General category
(84 FR 3724, February 13, 2019),
resulting in an adjusted 2019 Reserve
category quota of 3.5 mt.
Pursuant to § 635.27(a)(4), NMFS has
determined the amount of quota
available to the Atlantic Tunas Purse
Seine category participants in 2019,
based on their BFT catch (landings and
dead discards) in 2018. In accordance
with the regulations, NMFS makes
available to each Purse Seine category
participant either 100 percent, 75
percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent of the
individual baseline quota allocations
based on the previous year’s catch, as
described in § 635.27(a)(4)(ii), and
reallocates the remainder to the Reserve
category. NMFS has calculated the
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6676-6701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01685]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309; FRL-9988-79-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), electronic reporting, and
clarification of rule provisions. These final amendments address
emissions during periods of SSM; add electronic reporting; revise
certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and
include other miscellaneous technical and editorial changes. These
final amendments will result in improved compliance and implementation
of the rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 28, 2019. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February
28, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Keith Barnett, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5605; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email
address: barnett.keith@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (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 NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA 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:
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:
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
[[Page 6677]]
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Office of Safety and Health Administration
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SDS safety data sheet
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Background information. On April 6, 2018, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP based on
our RTR (83 FR 14997). In this action, we are finalizing decisions and
revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on
the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in
``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production Risk and Technology Review,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0309. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source
category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the
source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category in our April 6, 2018, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category
C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category
D. Other Revisions To Monitoring, Performance Testing, and
Reporting Requirements for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category
E. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS
NESHAP and source category code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production......................... 327212
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wet-formed-fiberglass-mat-production-national-emission-standards.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by April
[[Page 6678]]
29, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by
this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3); National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 640
(D.C. Cir. 2000). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 14984, April 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP
on April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17824). The standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH. The Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
industry consists of facilities that use formaldehyde-based resins to
bond glass fibers together to make wet-formed fiberglass mat, which can
be used as a substrate for multiple roofing products, as reinforcement
for various plastic, cement, and gypsum products, and in miscellaneous
specialty products. 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 remove 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 is formaldehyde, which is
classified as a probable human carcinogen; and methanol, which is not
classified as a carcinogen. The source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes seven facilities.
The affected source is each wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and
curing oven. The NESHAP regulates emissions
[[Page 6679]]
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 new and existing drying and curing ovens
are: (1) A maximum formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03 kilograms per
megagram of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds per ton of
wet-formed fiberglass mat produced) or (2) a minimum of 96-percent
destruction efficiency of formaldehyde. Thermal oxidizers are used by
facilities subject to the NESHAP to control their drying and curing
oven exhausts.
C. What changes did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category in our April 6, 2018, proposal?
On April 6, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP, that took
into consideration the RTR analyses (83 FR 14997, April 6, 2018). Based
on the residual risk analysis, we proposed that risks from the source
category are acceptable, that the NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, and that a more stringent standard is
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Accordingly,
we did not propose revisions to the numerical emission limits based on
our residual risk analysis. Based on the technology review, we proposed
that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Accordingly, we did not propose any changes under the
technology review. In addition, we proposed amendments to the SSM
provisions and revisions to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the following 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. We also proposed miscellaneous
technical and editorial changes.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source category pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(6) and (f)(2). This action also finalizes other changes to the
NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions and a change to the
proposed definition of ``shutdown'' to reflect comments we received on
the proposal. Other changes include revisions to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to require electronic
submittal of performance test report results; submittal of semiannual
compliance reports for when deviations from applicable standards occur;
and removal of parameter monitoring and performance testing
requirements during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used. We are
also finalizing miscellaneous technical and editorial changes that we
proposed in April 2018. This action also reflects several changes to
certain aspects of the April 2018 proposal that are in response to
comments received during the public comment period. These changes are
described in section IV of this preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
This section introduces the final amendments to the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). As proposed, we are finalizing our finding that risks
remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for this
source category are acceptable. Also as proposed, we are finalizing the
determination that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Therefore, we are not finalizing any
revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses
conducted under CAA section 112(f).
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
We are finalizing proposed amendments to the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM.
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the 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 section 112 standards apply continuously.
As proposed, we have eliminated the SSM exemption, which is
contained in 40 CFR 63.2986(g)(1). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times.
As explained at proposal, we have also revised Table 2 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHH (the General Provisions applicability table), in
several respects. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement for a source to develop an SSM
plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that are related to the SSM exemption as
described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized again here.
In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account periods of startup and shutdown and, for the reasons explained
in the April 2018 proposal and below, has not established alternate
standards for those periods.
As explained at proposal, periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's
operations. As also explained at proposal, because thermal oxidizer
controls are employed during all periods that a drying and curing oven
is processing binder-infused fiberglass mat, there is no need to
establish separate formaldehyde standards for periods of startup and
shutdown (83 FR 14998). We did, however, propose definitions of startup
and shutdown for purposes of this subpart. The proposed definitions
clarified that it is not the setting in 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 and cessation
of operation of the drying and curing of any binder-infused fiberglass
mat. We also explained that it is this binder-infused fiberglass mat,
not the ovens themselves, that emit HAP. Therefore, we found that it
was appropriate to establish definitions for startup and shutdown based
on the setting in and
[[Page 6680]]
cessation of operation of the drying and curing oven. Further, in
response to comments on our proposal, we have made minor clarifications
to the definition of shutdown in the final rule in order to account for
the residence time of the binder-infused fiberglass mat in the oven,
and to aid facilities in establishing periods of shutdown when
emissions from the drying oven cease. We have also revised definitions
for startup and shutdown to consistently refer to the material being
processed as ``binder-infused fiberglass mat.'' Finally, we have added
a definition of ``maximum residence time'' to 40 CFR 63.3004 and a
formula that facilities must use to determine the maximum residence
time for each production line.
This reflects the Agency's response to comments received on our
proposal that indicated shutdown would end when the maximum residence
time has elapsed after binder-infused fiberglass mat is no longer
entering the oven. Typically, residence times are of short duration for
wet-formed fiberglass mat lines, and are on the order of less than 10
seconds to less than 1 minute. The maximum residence time is the
longest time that a particular point on the fiberglass mat could remain
in the drying and curing oven, and is based on the length of the drying
and curing oven and the slowest line speed normally operated on the
line, excluding periods of ramping up to speed during startup. Air
pollution controls continue to operate through shutdown, and all
emissions from the ovens continue to be routed to the air pollution
control equipment until shutdown is completed.
With regard to malfunctions, the EPA did not propose separate
standards for periods of malfunction. At proposal, we explained our
interpretation of CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards. We noted that this reading has been upheld as
reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-
610 (2016). The EPA further explained that, ``although no statutory
language compels EPA to set standards for malfunctions, EPA has the
discretion to do so where feasible. 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'' (83 FR 14999).
The EPA is not finalizing separate standards for periods of
malfunction. While we requested comment for work practice standards
during periods of malfunction, and received some information in support
of such standards, we did not receive sufficient information on which
to base a malfunction standard.
As further explained at proposal, ``[i]n 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
preventive 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'' (83 FR 14999).
The following aspects for the SSM provisions are being finalized as
proposed, with minor corrections and clarifications.
1. 40 CFR 63.2986 General Duty
As discussed at proposal, we are revising 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.'' At
proposal, we explained that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions and contains language that we consider no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We proposed adding 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. We
further explained that the current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM, and
that with the elimination of the SSM exemption, there would be no need
to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and
malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA proposed for 40 CFR 63.2986(g) did not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). These revisions are being finalized as
proposed, with the exception of minor grammatical corrections and
clarifications.
Consistent with our proposal, we are also revising 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.'' As
explained at proposal, 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
are either not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or
are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.2986.
2. SSM Plan
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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 recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
plan. As noted at proposal, the EPA is removing the SSM exemption.
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. We believe that 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.
3. Compliance with Standards
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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.'' As
explained at proposal, 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 revising standards in this rule to apply at all times.
This change means that sources would no longer be exempt from
nonopacity standards during periods of SSM.
4. 40 CFR 63.2992 Performance Testing
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table
[[Page 6681]]
(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.'' As explained at
proposal, 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements
and, in order to reflect the removal of the SSM exemption, the EPA
proposed adding performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.2992(e).
The revised regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) that restates the SSM exemption and language that precluded
startup and shutdown periods from being considered ``representative''
for purposes of performance testing and the revised performance testing
provisions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. Similar to 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), the revisions to 40 CFR 63.2992(e) specify that performance
tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during
malfunctions; as noted at proposal, conditions during malfunctions are
often not representative of normal operating conditions. We also
proposed adding language that would require the owner or operator to
record both the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during performance testing and an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. We explained
that 40 CFR 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. We further explained that the regulatory text the EPA is
adding to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit
the requirement to record the information. These revisions are being
finalized as proposed, with the exception of minor grammatical
corrections and clarifications.
5. Monitoring
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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
``no.'' As explained at proposal, 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)).
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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.'' At
proposal, we had explained that the final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3)
refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement that is no
longer applicable. The EPA also proposed adding text in 40 CFR
63.2994(a)(2) that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the
final sentence would be replaced with the following sentence: ``You
should include the program of corrective action in the plan required
under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).''
6. 40 CFR 63.2998 Recordkeeping
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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.'' As
explained at proposal, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These
recordkeeping provisions are no longer necessary with the removal of
the SSM exemption, and, instead, the EPA is extending the requirements
for recordkeeping and reporting under normal operations to startup and
shutdown. As also previously explained in response to comments, we have
revised the definition of shutdown in order to account for the
residence time of the binder-infused fiberglass mat in the oven to help
sources establish periods of shutdown and to determine when HAP
emissions from ovens would cease. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods is now
limited to records used to establish the maximum residence time that
any binder-infused fiberglass mat would remain in the drying and curing
oven and to determine the time of shutdown. As discussed in section
III.C of this preamble, shutdown ends when the maximum residence time
has elapsed after binder infused fiberglass mat is no longer entering
the oven. The maximum residence time must be determined for each
production line. Typically, residence times are very short for wet-
formed fiberglass mat lines, on the order of less than 10 seconds to
less than 1 minute. Therefore, we are also requiring facilities to
maintain records showing how the maximum residence time was derived for
each line.
Consistent with our proposal, we are also revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 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.'' At
proposal, we explained that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction and we proposed adding
the same requirements to 40 CFR 63.2998(g). We noted, however, that the
proposed regulatory text differs from the General Provisions given that
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) requires the creation and retention of a record
of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air
pollution control, and monitoring equipment. Instead, we proposed
recordkeeping requirements for any failure to meet an applicable
standard and also proposed requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than an ``occurrence.'' The
EPA also proposed adding to 40 CFR 63.2998(g) 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. We also
provided examples of such methods, which included product-loss
calculations, mass-balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA
further proposed requiring sources to keep records of information
related to any failure to meet applicable standards in order 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
documents how the source met the general duty requirement to minimize
emissions when the source failed to meet an applicable standard.
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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.'' As
explained at proposal, when applicable, this provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. This requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We further
explained that the requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions would now be applicable by reference to 40 CFR
63.2988(g).
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
[[Page 6682]]
HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' in column
3 to a ``no.'' As explained at proposal, when applicable, this
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. As further
explained, the requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans
will no longer be required.
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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.'' As
explained at proposal, with the elimination of the SSM exemption, 40
CFR 63.10(c)(15), which allows an owner or operator to either use the
affected source's SSM plan or keep records to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), and the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12), is now superfluous.
Consistent with our proposal, the EPA is eliminating this requirement
because SSM plans are no longer required.
7. 40 CFR 63.3000 Reporting
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising 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.'' As
explained at proposal, 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA proposed adding
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3000(c). We explained that the
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report.
Subject to the correction described below, we are promulgating language
requiring sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
to report the relevant information concerning such events in a
compliance report. Compliance reporting on a quarterly basis is
currently required under the existing NESHAP. We are changing this
reporting period from a quarterly (four times a year) to a semiannual
(twice a year) basis, as discussed further below. We are also
correcting an error that occurred at publication of the proposed rule
where the published rule text inadvertantly included the same proposed
revisions for both 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5) and (6), and did not read as
explained in the proposal (83 FR 15000). These provisions specify the
content requirements for semiannual compliance reports before and after
the compliance date for this final rule. We did not receive any
comments on the proposed language for these provisions. We are
correcting 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5) by including the correct language,
which specifies that the content requirements of semiannual compliance
reports prior to the compliance date for this final rule would include
the existing rule requirements. We are also correcting 40 CFR
63.3000(c)(6) to indicate that after the compliance date for this rule,
the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause
of such events (including whether the cause is unknown, 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. As
previously explained, examples of such methods include product-loss
calculations, mass-balance calculations, direct measurements, or
engineering judgment based on known process parameters. It also
includes calculations for maximum residence time to reflect revisions
being made in the final rule in response to comments on the proposed
definition of shutdown. The EPA is promulgating 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 requirement to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
As also proposed, we will no longer require owners or operators to
determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent
with an SSM plan, because, as previously discussed, such plans are no
longer required. The final amendments, therefore, specify in 40 CFR
63.3000(d) that the SSM reports (required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)) are no
longer required after the compliance dates for this rule. Malfunction
events will be reported in otherwise required reports having similar
format and submittal requirements, so these reporting specifications
are unnecessary and are being removed.
8. Definitions
We are promulgating definitions of ``Startup,'' ``Shutdown,'' and
``Maximum residence time'' in 40 CFR 63.3004. The current rule relies
on the 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, definitions of startup and shutdown,
which are based on the setting in operation, and cessation of
operation, of the affected source (i.e., drying and curing oven). As
previously explained in the proposal (83 FR 15001) and in this section,
the formaldehyde standards could only be exceeded during periods that
fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the oven. As also previously
explained, because the EPA is requiring standards in this rule to apply
at all times, we are promulgating definitions of startup and shutdown
based on these periods to clarify that it is the commencing of
operation and cessation of operation of the drying and curing of
binder-infused fiberglass mat, plus the maximum residence time of that
mat in the oven, that defines shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH. We are finalizing a defintion indicating that shutdown
occurs when binder-infused fiberglass mat ceases to enter the oven, in
addition to the maximum residence time that fiberglass mat remains in
the oven, as determined for each production line. According to comments
we received at proposal, once the maximum residence time has elapsed,
the mat is cured and dried, and is not emitting any organic HAP; there
are no emissions at this point. We have also added a definition for
``maximum residence time'' and a formula for how the residence time
must be determined for each production line (i.e., each drying and
curing oven). We have described these changes in section III.C of this
preamble, and made minor clarifications to definitions of both startup
and shutdown in response to comments on our proposal, as described in
section IV.C of this preamble.
For the reasons described in the preamble to the proposed rule, we
are also finalizing the proposed definition of ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR
63.3004 to remove language that differentiates between normal
operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events. We received
no comments on the proposed changes. The final rule also corrects a
publication error in the proposed rule. The proposed rule, as
published, incorrectly included two different definitions of
``Deviation.'' The final rule provides definitions of ``Deviation''
both prior to and after the compliance dates for this final rule.
Specifically, prior to the compliance dates for this rule, 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; (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in the subpart and that is
[[Page 6683]]
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 the subpart.
After the compliance dates for this rule, deviation means any
instance in which an affected source subject to the 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 the subpart and that is included in the
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a
permit.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
The EPA is promulgating revisions to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for this NESHAP in the following 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) parametric monitoring would no
longer be required during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used.
These provisions are being finalized as proposed, with minor
corrections and clarifications.
Additionally, we proposed to reduce parametric monitoring and
recording for facilities using non-HAP binders and solicited comment on
exempting performance testing for such facilities. Consistent with our
proposal, we are adopting the parametric monitoring exemption for
facilities using non-HAP binders, as discussed in section III.D.2 of
this preamble). Based on a review of comments received, we are also
finalizing an exemption from performance testing requirements for
drying and curing ovens that are subject to a federally enforceable
permit requiring the use of only non-HAP binders, which is discussed in
section III.D.3 of this preamble. We are also finalizing several
clarifying revisions to the rule, such as requirements for submittal of
performance test data, which is discussed in section III.F of this
preamble. The requirements for submittal of semiannual compliance
reports, parametric monitoring requirements for facilities using non-
HAP binders, exemption of performance testing requirements for
facilities that are limited to the use of only non-HAP binders, and
technical and editorial clarifications are discussed below in this
section.
1. Frequency of Compliance Reports
The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.3000(c) to require that compliance
reports be submitted on a semiannual basis in all instances, with minor
changes from proposal. 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. The final rule specifies when facilities must begin
transitioning from quarterly to semiannual reporting for deviations.
2. Parametric Monitoring and Recording During Use of Binder Containing
No HAP
The EPA is promulgating the provision 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 will 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 are requiring that owners and operators 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 promulgating revisions
to 40 CFR 63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 and Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, and also promulgating a definition of ``Non-HAP binder''
in 40 CFR 63.3004. As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, we
have revised the definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' from proposal to
clarify that non-HAP binder must meet the Office of Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard's criteria for
disclosing composition or ingredients in Section 3 of the safety data
sheet (SDS), except when the manufacturer has withheld identifying
information of the chemical. The affected source may not rely on a SDS
for a non-HAP binder where the manufacturer withholds the specific
chemical identity, including the chemical name, other specific
identification of a hazardous chemical, or the exact percentage
(concentration) of the substance in a mixture from Section 3 of the
SDS. In addition, the affected source may not withhold this information
when making the case that a binder used is a non-HAP binder. See
section IV.D of this preamble for additional information.
3. Exemption of Performance Testing for Facilities Subject to Federally
Enforceable Permit Requirements
At proposal, the EPA solicited comment on the exemption from
performance testing requirements for drying and curing ovens that are
subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the use of only
non-HAP binders (83 FR 15005). The EPA received supportive comments for
this exemption. Thus, we are promulgating revisions to 40 CFR 63.2991
to provide that drying and curing ovens using exclusively non-HAP
binders and that are subject to a federally enforceable permit limit
for such non-HAP binders are not required to conduct periodic
performance tests. This revision will 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 do not have a federally-enforceable permit limit and that
are currently permitted to use HAP-containing binders will still be
required to conduct periodic performance testing, even if they are not
currently using binders that contain HAP.
4. Technical and Editorial Changes
We are finalizing several clarifying revisions to the final rule as
described in Table 2 of this preamble.
[[Page 6684]]
Table 2--Miscellaneous Changes to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section of subpart HHHH Description of 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 IBR in paragraph
(e) by replacing the
reference to 40 CFR 63.3003
with, instead, 40 CFR
63.14.
40 CFR 63.2985............................ Amend paragraphs
(a) and (b) and add new
paragraph (d) to clarify
the compliance dates for
provisions related to these
amendments.
40 CFR 63.2993............................ Correct 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) 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-2) 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 the 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 Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (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 are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on February 28, 2019.
The compliance date for existing wet-formed fiberglass mat drying
and curing ovens and drying and curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 is no later
than 180 days after February 28, 2019. As we stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule, we are allowing 180 days for owners and operators of
such affected sources to comply with the rule, giving them time to read
and understand the amended rule requirements; to install necessary
hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic
reporting; 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 for periods
of non-HAP binder use; and to update their operation, maintenance, and
monitoring (OMM) plan to reflect the revised requirements. The
compliance date for wet-formed fiberglass mat curing ovens constructed
or reconstructed after April 6, 2018 is at startup or February 28,
2019, whichever is later.
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for owners and
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. The final rule
requires that performance test reports be submitted using the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). We are finalizing these requirements
as proposed, with minor clarifications for the written notification of
delayed reporting, as discussed in section IV.E of this preamble.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
For each issue, this section describes what we proposed and what we
are finalizing for each issue, the EPA's rationale for the final
decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses.
For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and
the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response
document available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a risk review and
presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the April
6, 2018, proposed rule for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category (83 FR 14984). The results of the risk assessment are
presented briefly in Table 3 of this preamble and in more detail in the
residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the
November 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is in the
docket for this action.
[[Page 6685]]
Table 3--Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the April 2018 Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population Estimated annual Maximum chronic non- Maximum screening acute non-cancer HQ \4\
cancer risk (in 1 at increased risk of cancer incidence cancer TOSHI \3\ -------------------------------------------------
million) \2\ cancer >= 1-in-1 (cases per year) ------------------------
------------------------ million ------------------------
Number of facilities \1\ ------------------------ Based on Based on
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on actual allowable Based on actual emissions level
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable emissions emissions
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions level level
level \2\ level level \2\ level level \2\ level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7............................................. 0.8 1 0 60 0.0003 0.0009 0.006 0.009 HQREL = 0.6 (formaldehyde).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) value. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category is the respiratory target
organ.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ) values. HQ values shown use the lowest
available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the reference exposure level (REL). When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response
value.
The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based
on actual emissions, show the cancer maximum individual risk (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 every 3,000 years. There were no
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the seven
facilities in this source category. The maximum chronic noncancer
hazard index (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.
We also evaluated the cancer risk at the maximum emissions allowed
by the MACT standard, or ``MACT-allowable emissions.'' 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
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 one excess case every 1,000 years. Based on MACT-allowable
emission rates, there were no cancer risks above 1-in-1 million.
Table 3 of this preamble indicates that for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source category, the maximum hazard quotient
(HQ) is 0.6, driven by formaldehyde. We conducted a screening analysis
of the worst-case acute HQ 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
reference exposure level (REL) for formaldehyde). The results showed
that no HQ values exceeded 1. Because none of the screening HQ were
greater than 1, further refinement of the estimates was not warranted.
An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to
provide context for the source category risks. The results of the
facility-wide (both MACT and non-MACT sources, i.e., sources at the
facility that are not included in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass source
category) 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 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 sources at the facility that were
not included in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Production source category
(non-MACT sources).
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 kilometers (km)
and also at populations living within 50 km of the facilities, and we
found 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 titled, 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.
We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source
category are acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and whether more
stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental
effect, by taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors. In determining whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, we examined the same risk
factors that we investigated for our acceptability determination and
also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other
relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce
risk associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed
that the 2002 Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP requirements
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Based on
the results of our environmental risk screening assessment, we also
proposed that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an
adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category?
Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed.
[[Page 6686]]
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received comments in support of and against the proposed risk
review and our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA
section 112(f)(2). Comments that were not supportive of the risk review
were considered at length. After review of these comments, we
determined that no changes needed to be made to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. The comments and our specific responses can be
found in the document titled ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review,''
which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category are acceptable,
and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our risk review as
proposed.
B. Technology Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for control of
formaldehyde emissions from drying and curing ovens at wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities. No cost-effective developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies were identified in our
technology review to warrant revisions to the standards. More
information concerning our technology review is in the memorandum
titled, Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production, which is in the docket for this action, and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 14984).
2. How did the technology review change for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category?
The technology review has not changed since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
We received comments in support of the proposed determination from
the technology review that no revisions were warranted under CAA
section 112(d)(6). We also received one comment that asserted that cost
effectiveness should not be a consideration when examining standards
under CAA section 112(d)(6). We evaluated the comments and determined
that no changes regarding our determination were needed. These comments
and our specific responses can be found in the comment summary and
response document titled ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review,''
which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were
identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the
standards. More information concerning our technology review, and how
we evaluate cost effectiveness, can be found in the memorandum titled
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production, which is in the docket for this action, and in the preamble
to the proposed rule (83 FR 14984). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology review as proposed.
C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
We proposed removing and revising provisions related to SSM that
are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all
times. More information concerning our proposal on SSM can be found in
the proposed rule (83 FR 14984).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category?
Since proposal, the SSM provisions have not changed, with the
following exceptions. We have corrected a publication error in the
proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5), as discussed in
section III.C.7 of this preamble. We have also clarified the proposed
definitions for ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' in the final rule to
address a comment received that requested use of consistent terminology
to refer to the material being processed, and for periods of shutdown,
by associating it with the maximum residence time required for the
curing and drying of mat in an oven and specifying the formula for
calculation of maximum residence time. We have revised the definitions
of ``Shutdown'' and ``Startup'' to read as set out in the regulatory
text at the end of this document.
We have also added a definition for ``maximum residence time,''
which reflects the longest duration that binder-infused fiberglass mat
would remain in the drying and curing oven and is determined based on
the length of the drying and curing oven and the slowest line speed for
the normal operation of an oven. The definition specifies a formula for
the calculation of the maximum residence time as shown in the
regulatory text at the end of this document.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
Comment: Although we did not propose standards for periods of
malfunction, one commenter initially proposed that the Agency should
promulgate work practice standards for malfunction events to address
HAP emissions from binder-infused fiberglass mat that would remain in
the oven during such events. In follow-up discussions of the potential
implementation of the requested work practice standard with the EPA,
the commenter requested that the EPA instead consider modifying the
definition of ``shutdown.'' \2\ The commenter asserted that the
proposed definition of ``shutdown'' could be construed such that a
shutdown period may continue for a period long after
[[Page 6687]]
binder-infused fiberglass mat has dried and emissions of organic HAP
have ceased. According to the commenter, this would result in the
potential for ``indefinite deviations.'' As an example, the commenter
provided that a power failure could result in the prevention of mat
leaving the oven even after the mat was cured and dried. The commenter
further explained that wet-formed fiberglass mat lines operate at high
speeds with relatively short residence times in the drying and curing
oven (ranging from less than 10 seconds to less than 1 minute), during
which the mat is completely dried and cured. Air pollution control
devices are operated during shutdown, and all emissions from the curing
and drying ovens are routed to these devices. The commenter requested
that the EPA amend the final definition of ``shutdown'' to clarify that
shutdown ends after mat ceases to enter the oven and following the
elapse of the residence time. The requested amendments would account
for the time period until the mat is completely cured and emissions
from the binder-infused fiberglass mat are no longer occurring. The
commenter also recommended that the EPA consider a definition for
``maximum residence time'' to clarify how facilities could calculate
the maximum residence time for each drying and curing oven. The
commenter also requested that the EPA revise the proposed definitions
of ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' to use consistent terminology to refer
to the material being processed. The commenter specifically requested
that the EPA's proposed definition of ``shutdown'' be revised to
replace the phrase ``any resin infused binder'' at the end of the
definition with ``any binder-infused fiberglass mat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See letter from Reed B. Hitchcock, Asphalt Roofers
Manufacturing Association to Susan Fairchild (EPA), ``Re: Risk and
Technology Review, Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHH; Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309; Proposed
Modification to Definition of Shutdown,'' September 21, 2018, in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We are finalizing the commenter's suggestions for
clarification of the definitions of ``startup'' and ``shutdown,'' and
the requested definition for ``maximum residence time.'' The EPA also
agrees with commenters that the initially requested work practice
standards are not appropriate for wet-formed fiberglass mat production
operations, and consistent with proposal, is not finalizing any
standards for malfunctions. We concur with the commenter's assessment
that the binder-infused fiberglass mat entering the oven is cured over
a relatively quick period (that may range from less than 10 seconds to
less than 1 minute) and that this period of time (the ``residence
time'') should be taken into account when determining the cessation of
the operation period; for shutdown to complete, the binder infused
fiberglass mat must enter and remain in the oven for the duration of
the maximum residence time. When the maximum residence time is
completed, no further emissions of HAP occur as a result of the wet-
formed fiberglass mat manufacturing process. We are finalizing these
suggested changes accordingly. We are finalizing provisions that the
maximum residence time should be established as the longest time period
(in seconds), during normal operation, that a particular point on the
fiberglass mat remains in the oven, as determined by the length of the
drying and curing oven (in feet), and the slowest line speed during
normal operation (in feet per second), excluding periods of ramping up
to speed during startup. This maximum residence time may then be used
to determine the time of shutdown. See sections III.C and IV.C.2 of
this preamble for additional information on the final definitions for
``startup,'' ``shutdown,'' and ``maximum residence time'' and
determining the maximum residence time. We have also revised 40 CFR
63.2998 to include a requirement that facilities must maintain records
that show how the maximum residence time was derived for each
production line.
Additional comments on the SSM provisions and our specific
responses to those comments can be found in the document titled Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket
for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule
(83 FR 14984) and in section III.C of this preamble, we determined that
these amendments remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are
not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all
times. Therefore, we are finalizing the amendments to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM, as proposed, with the exception of
clarifications to the definitions to ``startup'' and ``shutdown,'' and
the addition of a final definition for ``maximum residence time,'' as
discussed in this section.
D. Other Revisions To Monitoring, Performance Testing, and Reporting
Requirements for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category
1. What did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
We proposed several revisions to the rule's monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, including revisions to the
frequency of submittal of compliance reports, revisions to remove the
requirement for parametric monitoring for drying and curing ovens where
only a non-HAP binder is used, and technical and editorial revisions.
We proposed to revise the frequency of submittal of compliance
reports when deviations from applicable standards occur. Currently, 40
CFR 63.3000(c) requires owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass
mat production facilities to submit compliance reports on a semiannual
basis unless there are deviations from emission limits or operating
limits. In those instances, the rule required that compliance reports
be submitted on a quarterly basis. We proposed to revise 40 CFR
63.3000(c) to require that compliance reports be submitted on a
semiannual basis in all instances.
We proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 to
revise requirements for owners and operators to monitor and record the
parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, during
periods when a non-HAP binder is being used. We proposed 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), in lieu of monitoring or recording the
parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, owners
and operators would be required to record the dates and times that
production of mat using a non-HAP binder began and ended. We proposed
harmonizing revisions to Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, and a
definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' to be added to 40 CFR 63.3004 to
clearly identify periods when the binder formulation being used to
produce mat does not contain any HAP. We also solicited comments on
revising 40 CFR 63.2991 to exempt performance testing requirements for
drying and curing ovens that are subject to a federally enforceable
permit requiring the use of only non-HAP binders.
We proposed several technical and editorial revisions to 40 CFR
63.2984, 63.2993, and 63.2999. We also removed
[[Page 6688]]
and reserved 40 CFR 63.3003. The proposed revisions included clarifying
references, updates to acceptable reference methods that we are
incorporating by reference, updates to clarify the format of records,
and revisions for consistency with updates to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
2. How did the revisions and corrections to monitoring, performance
testing, and reporting requirements change for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the frequency of
submittal of compliance reports when deviations from applicable
standards occur from quarterly to semiannually. We are, however,
promulgating these revisions with minor changes such as clarifying 40
CFR 63.3000(c)(1) to indicate the date when the transition to
semiannual reporting should begin. We are also correcting a
typographical error in the proposed introductory sentence of 40 CFR
63.3000(c)(6).
We are revising 40 CFR 63.2984, 63.2996, 63.2998, 63.3004
(definition of ``Non-HAP binder''), and Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, to revise requirements for owners and operators to
monitor and record the parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used, with
minor revisions. We are revising Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH, to apply footnote ``4'' to line 1 (``Thermal oxidizer
temperature'') and to line 2 (``Other process or control device
parameters in your OMM plan''). Finally, we have revised the definition
of ``Non-HAP binder'' from proposal to clarify that the binder must
meet the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, at 29 CFR 1910.1200(b),
criteria for disclosing composition or ingredients in Section 3 of
SDSs, except when identifying information is withheld. In such cases,
an affected source may not rely on an SDS for a non-HAP binder where
the manufacturer has withheld the specific chemical identity, including
the chemical name, other specific identification of a hazardous
chemical, or the exact percentage (concentration) of the substance in a
mixture from Section 3 of the SDS. Additionally, an affected source may
not withhold this information when making the case that a binder used
is a non-HAP binder.
Since proposal, the technical and editorial revisions to 40 CFR
63.2984, 63.2993, 63.2999, and 63.3003 have not changed. We are,
however, making minor revisions such as grammatical corrections or
clarifications. For example, we are finalizing minor grammatical edits
(such as converting passive voice to active voice) and clarifications
that do not change the substantive content of the existing text. These
changes are not based on comments on the proposed rule, but rather
include minor edits to 40 CFR 63.2987(a), 63.2989(a), 63.2991(a),
63.2992(e), 63.2994(a)(2), 63.2996(a), 63.2997(a) and (b), 63.2998(c)
and (g), 63.2999(c), and 63.3000(e) through (g). Based on comments to
the proposed rule, we have also identified and implemented several
additional technical and editorial revisions, as discussed in section
IV.D.3 of this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposed revisions to
monitoring, performance testing, and reporting requirements for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, and what are our
responses?
a. Frequency of Compliance Reporting
Comment: One commenter supported reducing the reporting frequency
from quarterly to semiannually. This commenter requested that the EPA
clarify 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(1) to indicate when the transition to
semiannual reporting should begin. The commenter also noted that the
EPA should correct a typographical error in the introductory paragraph
of 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(6) from ``paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of
this section'' to ``paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (ix) of this
section.''
Response: We have clarified 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(1) by adding text
stating that if you deviate from the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.2983
or the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.2984 in the quarter prior to
February 28, 2019, you must include this information in the report for
the first full semiannual reporting period following February 28, 2019.
We also acknowledge the commenter's suggested correction to the
introductory sentence of 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(6) and have revised this
text as recommended.
b. Requirements for Facilities Using Non-HAP Binders
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed changes reducing
unnecessary regulatory burdens when non-HAP binders are in use. This
commenter supported the EPA's proposal to exempt drying and curing
ovens that are subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the
use of only non-HAP binders from performance testing requirements. The
commenter suggested that the EPA could limit the scope of 40 CFR
63.2981(a) to exclude such (non-HAP) ovens from applicability under
this section of the rule. The commenter also stated that the EPA should
revise Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to apply footnote ``d''
to line 1 (``Thermal oxidizer temperature'') and to line 2 (``Other
process or control device parameters in your OMM plan'') in order to
make effective the EPA's intent not to require monitoring or
recordkeeping for periods when binders containing no HAP were in use.
Response: We acknowledge the commenter's support for the exemption
from performance testing requirements for drying and curing ovens that
are subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the use of only
non-HAP binders. We did not receive any comments objecting to this
change and are finalizing changes to the 40 CFR 63.2991 introductory
text to exclude drying and curing ovens using exclusively
non[hyphen]HAP binders. The EPA is not accepting the suggested text
changes to 40 CFR 63.2981(a) recommended by the commenter because
facilities that use exclusively non-HAP binders may still be subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, if they are collocated with a major
source. However, such facilities would not be required to conduct
performance testing and would only be subject to recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. We also acknowledge the commenter's suggested
revisions to Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, and we have made
these edits, including minor clarifications to footnote ``d'' (new
footnote ``4'') in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise the new
definition of the term ``non-HAP binder'' to refer to the SDS, the term
used in the current OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR
1910.1200(b). This same commenter further requested that the EPA tie
the definition of non-HAP binder to the OSHA Hazard Communication
Standard's criteria for disclosing composition or ingredients in
Section 3 of SDSs.
Response: We acknowledge the commenter's suggested revisions and
have clarified the definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' as provided by the
commenter. We have further revised this definition to clarify that the
affected source may not rely on the SDS for a non-HAP binder where the
manufacturer has withheld the specific chemical identity, including the
chemical name, other specific identification of a hazardous chemical,
or the exact percentage (concentration) of the substance in a mixture
from
[[Page 6689]]
Section 3 of the SDS, or withheld this information, when making the
case that a binder used is a non-HAP binder. The definition of ``Non-
HAP binder'' has been revised as set out in the regulatory text at the
end of this document.
c. Miscellaneous Corrections or Clarifications Recommended by
Commenters
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise 40 CFR
63.2985(a) and (b) to specify when the compliance dates for the SSM
requirements, the electronic reporting requirements, and all other
requirements take effect.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has clarified 40
CFR 63.2985 of the final rule to specify when the compliance dates for
new provisions apply. Specific compliance dates for individual
provisions are included in 40 CFR 63.2986, 63.2998, 63.3000, 40 CFR
63.3004, and Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. In general, we
are providing for 180 days for existing sources to comply with the
revised rule requirements. We are also finalizing proposed changes to
40 CFR 63.2985(d) that require new or reconstructed drying and curing
ovens that commenced operation between the date of the proposal and the
date of the final rule to comply on the effective date of the final
rule or startup (whichever is later).
Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA remove the definition
of ``binder application vacuum exhaust'' from 40 CFR 63.3004, as this
term is not used in the standard as proposed.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the definition for
``binder application vacuum exhaust'' is no longer relevant for the
subpart and has removed the definition from the final rule.
Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to clarify that only 40 CFR 63.14(b)(2) and
(3) apply to subpart HHHH, rather than all of 40 CFR 63.14.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's recommended revision
to Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, and has revised the table
entry for ``Sec. 63.14'' accordingly.
Additional comments on the revisions to the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reportng provisions and our specific responses to
those comments can be found in the comment summary and response
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review, which is
available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the revisions to
monitoring, performance testing, and reporting requirements?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions for this
subpart, and the proposed technical and editorial corrections. These
comments were generally supportive, and requested only minor
clarifications and corrections to the proposed text. We are finalizing
these amendments as proposed, with the exception of the minor changes
discussed in this section.
Additionally, we solicited comments on revising 40 CFR 63.2991 to
exempt drying and curing ovens that are subject to a federally
enforceable permit requiring the use of only non-HAP binders from
performance testing requirements. We received only supportive comments
on this potential change. We are, therefore, promulgating changes to
the 40 CFR 63.2991 introductory text to exclude drying and curing ovens
using exclusively non[hyphen]HAP binders from meeting the requirements
of this section. Facilities that use a combination of HAP and non-HAP
binders would continue to be required to conduct performance tests as
currently required under the subpart.
E. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category
1. What did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
We proposed amendments that would require owners and operators of
wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens to submit electronic
copies of certain required performance test reports. More information
concerning these proposed revisions is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (83 FR 14984).
2. How did the requirements for submission of performance tests change
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
Since proposal, the requirement for owners and operators of wet-
formed fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens to submit electronic
copies of certain required performance test reports has not changed.
The EPA is requiring owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. The final
rule requires that performance test results be submitted using the ERT.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports; is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency; will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment; will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance; and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. 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 the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0309.
3. What key comments did we receive on submission of performance tests,
and what are our responses?
We received comments in support of and against the proposed
requirement for owners and operators to submit electronic copies of
performance test reports. Generally, the comments that were not
supportive of the proposed requirements to submit performance tests
electronically expressed concern that the requirements could require
duplicative or burdensome reporting, or expressed concerns regarding
delayed reporting requirements for sources to take in cases of events
that may cause a delay in reporting. After review of these comments, we
determined that no changes are necessary. The comments and our specific
responses can be found in the document titled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk
and Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this
action.
A commenter requested that the EPA clarify the written notification
of delayed reporting requirement in the proposed amendment to 40 CFR
63.3000(f). In response to this request, the EPA has revised the
language in 40 CFR 63.3000(f) to state that an owner or operator must
provide information on
[[Page 6690]]
the date(s) and time(s) either CDX or CEDRI is unavailable when a user
attempts to gain access in the 5 business days prior to the submission
deadline.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for submission of
performance tests?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
requiring owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and
curing ovens to submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports. For the reasons explained in the proposed
rule, we determined that these amendments increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. More
information concerning the proposed requirement for owners and
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports
is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 14984) and the document,
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket
for this action. Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for
submission of performance tests, as proposed.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
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 these final amendments. The
basis of our estimate of affected facilities is provided in the
memorandum titled Wet-Formed Fiberglass: Residual Risk Modeling File
Documentation, 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 finalizing
revisions to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any air quality
impacts as a result of the final rule's amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that
would be subject to the final 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 net costs associated with the final requirements are
estimated to be $200 per year in each of the 3 years following
promulgation of amendments. This estimated total annual cost is
comprised of estimated annual costs of about $1,390, which are offset
by the estimated annual cost savings of about $1,190. The EPA believes
that the seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities which
are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the final requirements
without incurring additional capital or operational costs. Therefore,
the only costs associated with the final amendments are related to
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs. For further information on the
requirements being finalized, see sections III and IV of this preamble.
For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with
the final requirements, see the memorandum titled Cost Impacts of Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review (Final
Rule), and the document, Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production (Final Rule), which are both available in the
docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted above, the nationwide annual costs associated with the
final requirements are estimated to be approximately $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 promulgated, see the memorandum titled Final
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 final amendments, we believe that the action, if
finalized, would result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the
final 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
final amendments reducing parameter monitoring and recording and
performance testing requirements when non-HAP binder is being used to
produce mat will reduce burden for regulated facilities during such
periods, while continuing to protect public health and the environment.
See section IV.D of this preamble for more information.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, 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. The results of this analysis indicated 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.
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
the preamble to the proposed rule and the technical report titled 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.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections
IV.A and B of this preamble and further documented in the risk report
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category in Support of the November 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this
action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be
[[Page 6691]]
found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1964.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
We are finalizing 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, and performance testing requirements during
use of binder containing no HAP. We also included a review of the
amended rule by affected facilities in the updated ICR for this final
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 final 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 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. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this 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
titled Final 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. 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 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 B and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and
further documented in the risk report titled, Residual Risk Assessment
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support
of the November 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is
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. The EPA has decided to
use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
are used to determine the gas flow rate which is used with the
concentration of formaldehyde to calculate the mass emission rate.
While the EPA identified 11 voluntary consensus standards (VCS) as
being potentially applicable as alternatives to EPA Methods 1, 2, 3,
3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, the Agency is not using them. The use of
these VCS would be impractical because of their
[[Page 6692]]
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and/or other
important technical and policy considerations.
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). The EPA conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable VCS. However, the Agency identified no
such standards, and none were brought to its attention in comments.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to use Methods 316, 318, and 320 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A.
Results of the search are documented in the memorandum titled,
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. Additional
information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/emc/emc-promulgated-test-methods.
The EPA is also promulgating revisions to 40 CFR 63.2984 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), and revising the text regarding the existing IBR
(chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
Practice'' (23rd Edition)) by updating the reference to 40 CFR 63.14.
These methods provide guidance on the capture and conveyance of
formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven to the thermal
oxidizer. Owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities may continue to use the existing reference (23rd edition),
or the updated method (27th edition) may be obtained from American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), Customer
Service Department, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45240,
telephone number (513) 742-2020. In addition, owners and operators may
inspect a copy at U.S. EPA Library, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, phone (919) 541-0094.
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 titled 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.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 20, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 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 paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(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, and appendix A to subpart RRR, and Sec. 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,
and appendix A to subpart RRR, and Sec. 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) and (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 are 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 paragraphs (a) and (b) and
(c) introductory text and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
[[Page 6693]]
Sec. 63.2985 When do I have to comply with these standards?
(a) Existing drying and curing ovens must be in compliance with
this subpart no later than April 11, 2005, except as otherwise
specified in this section and Sec. Sec. 63.2986, 63.2998, 63.3000, and
63.3004 and Table 2 to this subpart.
(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, except as
otherwise specified in this section and Sec. Sec. 63.2986, 63.2998,
63.3000, and 63.3004 and Table 2 to this subpart.
(c) If your facility is an area source that increases its emissions
or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP,
the following apply:
* * * * *
(d) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after
April 6, 2018 must be in compliance with this subpart at startup or by
February 28, 2019 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 August 28, 2019, existing drying and curing ovens and
drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 26, 2000
and before April 7, 2018 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 August 27, 2019, affected sources must be in compliance with the
emission limits in Sec. 63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec.
63.2984 at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018, must comply with all requirements
of the subpart, no later than February 28, 2019 or upon startup,
whichever is later.
(2) Before August 28, 2019, existing drying and curing ovens and
drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 26, 2000
and before April 9, 2018 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
August 27, 2019, for such affected sources, and after February 28, 2019
for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018, 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 you are in compliance with the emissions limits
required by this subpart. The Administrator will base the determination
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements 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 August 28, 2019, for each existing source and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction commenced after May
26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018, you must maintain your 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 for such affected
sources after August 27, 2019. No startup, shutdown, or malfunction
plan is required for any affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
0
6. Section 63.2987 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2987 What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring
(OMM) plan include?
(a) You must prescribe the monitoring that will be performed to
ensure compliance with these emission limitations. Table 1 to this
subpart lists the minimum monitoring requirements. Your plan must
specify the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section:
* * * * *
(d) Your plan must specify the recordkeeping procedures to document
compliance with the emissions and operating limits. Table 1 to this
subpart establishes the minimum recordkeeping requirements.
0
7. Section 63.2989 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2989 How do I change my OMM plan?
* * * * *
(a) To revise the ranges or levels established for your operating
limits in Sec. 63.2984, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section:
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.2991 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2991 When must I conduct performance tests?
Except for drying and curing ovens subject to a federally
enforceable permit that requires the exclusive use of non-HAP binders,
you must conduct a performance test for each drying and curing oven
subject to this subpart according to the provisions in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section:
(a) Initially. You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate
initial compliance and to establish operating parameter limits and
ranges to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission standards no later than 180 days after the applicable
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2985.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.2992 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), 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).
* * * * *
(d) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
operating parameters that you will use to demonstrate continuous
compliance after the test. These parameters are listed in Table 1 to
this subpart.
(e) You must conduct performance tests under conditions that are
representative of the performance of the affected source.
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 record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request,
you must make available to the
[[Page 6694]]
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.2993 is revised to read as follow:
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.
(f) Use the method contained in appendix A to this subpart or the
resin purchase specification and the vendor specification sheet for
each resin lot for determining the free-formaldehyde content in the
urea-formaldehyde resin.
(g) Use the method in appendix B to this subpart for determining
product loss-on-ignition.
0
11. 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 parameter monitoring system
(CPMS) quality control program that includes written procedures for
CPMS 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 subpart,
to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator. If you revise the performance evaluation plan, 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. You should include the program of corrective action in the plan
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the CPMS 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
12. 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 to this
subpart and any other parameters specified in your OMM plan. You must
monitor the parameters, at a minimum, at the corresponding frequencies
listed in Table 1 to 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 to this subpart.
0
13. Section 63.2997 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2997 What are the requirements for monitoring devices?
(a) If you control formaldehyde emissions using a thermal oxidizer,
you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section:
* * * * *
(b) If you use process modifications or a control device other than
a thermal oxidizer to control formaldehyde emissions, you must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate devices to monitor the parameters
established in your OMM plan at the frequency established in the plan.
0
14. Section 63.2998 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraphs (a) and (c), (e)
introductory text, and (f);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (g) and (i).
The revisions and additions 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
(i) 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 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating
limit specified in Table 1 to this subpart. If you do not monitor the
parameters in Table 1 to this subpart during periods when using non-HAP
binder, you must record the dates and times that production of mat
using non-HAP binder began and ended.
* * * * *
(e) Before August 28, 2019, for existing drying and curing ovens
and drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 26,
2000 and before April 7, 2018, if an operating parameter deviation
occurs, you must record:
* * * * *
(f) Before August 28, 2019, for existing drying and curing ovens
and drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 26,
2000 and before April 7, 2018, keep all records specified in Sec.
63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Records specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) are
not required to be kept after August 27, 2019 for existing or new
drying and curing ovens.
(g) After February 28, 2019 for affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after April 6, 2018, and after August
27, 2019 for all other affected sources, 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 to
return the operating parameter to the limit or to within the range
specified in the OMM plan, and the dates and times at which corrective
actions were initiated and completed.
* * * * *
(i) Records showing how the maximum residence time was derived.
[[Page 6695]]
0
15. 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) You may maintain any records that you submitted electronically
via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI)
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 onsite compliance evaluation.
0
16. Section 63.3000 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1) and (4), (c)(5)
introductory text, and (c)(5)(viii) and (ix);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(6);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d) and (e) as paragraph (e) and (d),
respectively, and revising newly redesignated paragraphs (e) and (d);
and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
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 March 1, 2019, 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 February 28, 2019, you are not required
to submit quarterly compliance reports. If you deviate from the
emission limits in Sec. 63.2983 or the operating limits in Sec.
63.2984 in the quarter prior to February 28, 2019, you must include
this information in the report for the first full semiannual reporting
period following February 28, 2019.
* * * * *
(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 August 28, 2019, for existing drying and
curing ovens and drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed
after May 26, 2000 and before April 7, 2018, if there was a deviation
from the emission limit in Sec. 63.2983 or an operating limit in Sec.
63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information
in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section:
* * * * *
(viii) A brief description of the associated process units.
(ix) A brief description of the associated continuous parameter
monitoring system.
(6) Deviations. For affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018, after February 28, 2019, and after
August 27, 2019 for all other affected sources, 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)(6)(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 (including unknown cause, if
applicable), 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 associated process units.
(ix) A brief description of the associated continuous parameter
monitoring system.
(d) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before August 28, 2019,
for existing drying and curing ovens and drying and curing ovens
constructed or reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and before April 7,
2018, if you have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified
Sec. 63.10(d)(5). No startup, shutdown, or malfunction plan is
required for any affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.
(e) 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 that you will include 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. For affected
sources that commence construction or reconstruction after April 6,
2018, beginning February 28, 2019, and beginning no later than August
27, 2019 for all other affected sources, you must submit the results
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
[[Page 6696]]
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/)). You must submit performance
test data 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 you
are submitting under paragraph (e)(1) is confidential business
information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through
the use of the EPA's 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 disk, flash drive or other
commonly used electronic storage medium to the EPA. You must clearly
mark the electronic medium as CBI and mail 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. You must submit the same
ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX
as described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(f) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you
may assert a claim of EPA outage for failure to timely comply with the
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this
section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required test report within the time prescribed due to
an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX Systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) 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 has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(6) 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.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(g) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if 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 five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. 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 requirements 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).
(2) 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 has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(4) 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.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
17. Section 63.3001 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3001 What sections of the general provisions apply to me?
You must comply with the requirements of the general provisions of
40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as specified in Table 2 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.3003 [Removed and Reserved]
0
18. Section 63.3003 is removed and reserved.
0
19. Section 63.3004 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition for ``Binder application vacuum exhaust''.
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Deviation''; and
0
c. Adding definitions for ``Maximum residence time'', ``Non-HAP
binder'', ``Shutdown'', and ``Startup'' in alphabetical order.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3004 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means:
(1) Before August 28, 2019, any instance in which an affected
source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a
source:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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
(iii) 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.
[[Page 6697]]
(2) After February 28, 2019 for affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after April 6, 2018, and after August
27, 2019 for all other affected sources, any instance in which an
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of
such a source:
(i) 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
(ii) 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.
* * * * *
Maximum residence time means the longest time, during normal
operation and excluding periods of ramping up to speed during startup,
that a particular point on the fiberglass mat remains in the drying and
curing oven. It is determined for each line by the equation:
T = L/S
Where:
T is the residence time, in seconds;
L is the length of the drying and curing oven, in feet; and
S is the slowest line speed normally operated on the line, excluding
periods of ramping up to speed during startup, in feet per second.
Non-HAP binder means a binder formulation that does not contain any
substance that is required to be listed in Section 3 of a safety data
sheet (SDS) pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) and that is a HAP as
defined in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act. In designating a non-
HAP binder under this subpart, you may not rely on the SDS for a binder
where the manufacturer has withheld the specific chemical identity,
including the chemical name, other specific identification of a
hazardous chemical, or the exact percentage (concentration) of the
substance in a mixture from Section 3 of the SDS. You may not withhold
this information when making the case that the binder is a non-HAP
binder for the purposes of Sec. 63.2996.
* * * * *
Shutdown after February 28, 2019 for affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after April 6, 2018, and after August
27, 2019 for all other affected sources, means the cessation of
operation of the drying and curing of any binder-infused fiberglass mat
for any purpose. Shutdown ends when the maximum residence time has
elapsed after binder-infused fiberglass mat ceases to enter the drying
and curing oven.
Startup after February 28, 2019 for affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after April 6, 2018, and after August
27, 2019 for all other affected sources, means the setting in operation
of the drying and curing of binder-infused fiberglass mat for any
purpose. Startup begins when binder-infused fiberglass mat enters the
oven to be dried and cured for the first time or after a shutdown
event.
* * * * *
0
20. Table 1 to subpart HHHH of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
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 \1\ \4\. 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 \2\ \4\.
3. Urea-formaldehyde resin On each operating The average lb/h
solids application rate \4\. 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 \4\. resin purchased. lot used during the
operating day.
5. Loss-on-ignition \3\ \4\. 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 \3\ \4\. 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) \3\ \4\. 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) \3\ \4\. operating day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde
emissions.
\2\ Required if process modifications or a control device other than a
thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions.
\3\ These parameters must be monitored and values recorded, but no
operating limits apply.
\4\ You are not required to monitor or record these parameters during
periods when using a non-HAP binder. If you do not monitor these
parameters during periods when using a non-HAP binder, you must record
the dates and times that production of mat using the non-HAP binder
began and ended.
0
21. 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. ........................
[[Page 6698]]
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.
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 No, for new or See Sec. 63.2986(g)
Emissions. reconstructed sources for general duty
which commenced requirement.
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............. Requirement to Correct No, for new or ........................
Malfunctions As Soon As reconstructed sources
Possible. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............ Operation and Yes..................... Sec. Sec. 63.2984 and
Maintenance 63.2987 specify
Requirements. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. SSM Plan Requirements... No, for new or ........................
reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. SSM Exemption........... No, for new or ........................
reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
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.
[[Page 6699]]
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..... No, for new or See Sec. 63.2992(c).
reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)............. Conduct of Tests........ Yes..................... Sec. 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 No, for new or ........................
Emissions and CMS reconstructed sources
Operation. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. Continuous Monitoring Yes. ........................
System (CMS) Operation
and Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Requirement to Develop No, for new or ........................
SSM Plan for CMS. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
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 No, for new or See Sec. 63.2994(a).
CMS. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
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.
[[Page 6700]]
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 No, for new or ........................
Occurrence and Duration reconstructed sources
of Startups and which commenced
Shutdowns. construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............ Recordkeeping of No, for new or See Sec. 63.2998(g)
Failures to Meet a reconstructed sources for recordkeeping
Standard. which commenced requirements for an
construction or affected source that
reconstruction after fails to meet an
April 6, 2018. Yes, for applicable standard.
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........... Maintenance Records..... Yes. ........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v).... Actions Taken to No, for new or ........................
Minimize Emissions reconstructed sources
During SSM. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............ Recordkeeping for CMS Yes. ........................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)..... Other CMS Requirements.. Yes. ........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Recordkeeping Yes. ........................
requirement for
applicability
determinations.
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......... No, for new or ........................
reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
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............. No, for new or See Sec. 63.3000(c)
reconstructed sources for malfunction
which commenced reporting requirements.
construction or
reconstruction after
April 6, 2018. Yes, for
all other affected
sources before August
28, 2019, and No
thereafter.
[[Page 6701]]
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 use
lity.. flares as control
devices.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and Yes. ........................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses............... Yes. ........................
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Yes..................... See Sec. 63.14(b)(2)
Reference. and (3) for
applicability
requirements.
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Yes. ........................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-01685 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P