
[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


