[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27142-27144]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11022]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0425; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-273-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by multiple reports of cracks of overwing frames. This
proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the
overwing frames, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct such cracking
that could sever a frame, which may increase the loading of adjacent
frames, and result in damage to the adjacent structure and consequent
loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: (562)
627-5357; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0425;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-273-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received multiple reports of cracks of overwing frames on Model
MD-80 airplanes, and one report each on Model MD-90-30 and Model 717
airplanes. The Model 717 airplane had accumulated 18,235 total flight
hours and 14,542 total flight cycles. Due to similarity in frame
design, the manufacturer determined the overwing frames at stations
674, 696, and 715 on Model 717 airplanes are susceptible to cracks. The
cracks, caused by fatigue, originate in the upper radius of the frame
inboard tab just below the floor. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in a severed frame, which may increase the loading of
adjacent frames and result in damage to the adjacent structure and
consequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Related Rulemaking

    The overwing frames on Model 717 airplanes have the same design as
those installed on Model MD-80 and Model MD-90-30 airplanes. AD 2008-
13-29, Amendment 39-15592 (73 FR 38883, July 8, 2008), addresses
cracked overwing frames on Model MD-80 airplanes. AD 2010-05-04,
Amendment 39-16213 (75 FR 8465, February 25, 2010), addresses cracked
overwing frames on Model MD-90-30 airplanes.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-53A0034, dated
October 5, 2011. That service bulletin describes procedures for
repetitive general visual and high frequency eddy current inspections
to detect cracking of the overwing frames at stations 674, 696, and
715, left and right sides, and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary.
    Related investigative actions include measuring crack length.
Corrective actions include a blend-out repair, or replacing the cracked
overwing frame with a new frame, depending on the results of the
inspection.
    For the repetitive inspections for cracking of the overwing frames,
the service information specifies an interval not to exceed 9,300
flight cycles; except after accomplishing a replacement, the next
inspection is within 20,000 flight cycles after the replacement.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 129 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.......................  46 work-hours x $85 per                $0           $3,910         $504,390
                                     hour = $3,910 per
                                     inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/
repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blendout repair....................  12 work-hours x $85 per      $0....................  $1,020.
                                      hour = $1,020.
Replacement of a frame station.....  130 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $86,977.........  Up to $98,027.
                                      hour = $11,050.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0425; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-273-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 25, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of cracks of overwing
frames. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking
that could sever a frame, which may increase the loading of adjacent
frames, and result in damage to the adjacent structure and
consequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Actions

    Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within
8,275 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Do a general visual and high frequency eddy current
inspection for cracking of the left and right side overwing frames
at stations 674, 696, and 715; and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-
53A0034, dated October 5, 2011. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat
the inspections thereafter at the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
717-53A0034, dated October 5, 2011.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571,
Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11022 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40970-40981]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18211]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9967-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT13

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing amendments to previous proposals to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category. In the July 29, 2015, final rulemaking,
the EPA deferred action on previously proposed formaldehyde, methanol
and phenol emission limits from rotary spin (RS) lines at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In this action, the EPA is
proposing to readopt the existing emission limits for formaldehyde, to
establish emission limits for methanol, and to establish a work
practice standard for phenol emissions from bonded RS lines at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In addition, the EPA is proposing
amendments to the emission limits promulgated on July 29, 2015, for
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from flame attenuation (FA) lines at
wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. The EPA is only taking
comments on the specific proposed requirements and revisions set forth
in this proposed rulemaking, which are based on information contained
in this proposal. The EPA is not taking comment on any aspect of
previous rulemakings, including the November 25, 2011, April 15, 2013,
and November 13, 2014, proposals.

DATES: The EPA must receive written comments on this proposed rule on
or before October 13, 2017.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by September 5,
2017, then we will hold a public hearing on September 13, 2017. The
last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the public hearing will
be September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Public Hearing. If a hearing is requested, it will be held at the
EPA WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20004. If a public hearing is requested, then we will provide
additional details about the public hearing on our Web site at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wool-fiberglass-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards. To request a hearing, to
register to speak at a hearing, or to inquire if a hearing will be
held, please contact Aimee St. Clair at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The EPA does not intend to publish any future
notices in the Federal Register regarding a public hearing on this
proposed action and directs all inquiries regarding a hearing to the
Web site and contact person identified above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Brian Storey, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The EPA has established a docket for
this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. All documents
in the docket are listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Public Hearing. If requested by September 5, 2017, a public hearing
will be held on September 13, 2017 at the EPA WJC East Building, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is
requested, then we will provide additional details about the public
hearing on our Web site at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wool-fiberglass-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards.
In addition, you may contact Aimee St. Clair at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with public hearing inquiries. The last day to
pre-register to speak at a hearing, if one is held, will be September
11, 2017. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the
hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences on
speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. Please note that
registration requests received before the hearing will be confirmed by
the EPA via email.
    The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who
arrive and register. If the hearing is held at a U.S. governmental
facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared
to show valid picture identification to the security staff to gain
access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by
Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal
facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American
Samoa, California, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Virgin Islands, Virginia, or the state of Washington,
you must present an additional form of identification to enter the
federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification
include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's
licenses, and military identification cards. In addition, you will need
to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with
you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this
property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in
the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and
demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security
reasons.
    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:

BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CD-ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FA lame attenuation
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
HAP hazardous air pollutants
ICR information collection request
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resource Defense Council
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PF phenol-formaldehyde
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RS rotary spin
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
tpy tons per year

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

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the regulatory history for wool fiberglass
manufacturing?
    C. What is the purpose of this proposal?
III. What are the proposed rule requirements for RS lines and what
is our rationale?
    A. What are the proposed rule requirements for formaldehyde
emissions from bonded RS lines?
    B. What are the proposed rule requirements for methanol
emissions from bonded RS lines?
    C. What are the proposed rule requirements for phenol emissions
from bonded RS lines?
IV. What are the proposed rule amendments resulting from our
technology review and our proposed decisions?
    A. What are the results and proposed decisions for formaldehyde
emissions from RS lines based on our technology review?
    B. What are the proposed requirements for methanol emissions
from RS lines?
    C. What are the proposed requirements for phenol emissions from
RS lines?
    D. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. What other changes are we proposing to the NESHAP in this action?
VI. What are the proposed amendments applicable to FA lines?
VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
    A. How many sources are affected?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be
affected by this proposed action.

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

    The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities are not affected by this proposed action.
    In 1992, the EPA defined the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category as any facility engaged in producing wool fiberglass from
sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, or any
other materials. In the wool fiberglass manufacturing process, molten
glass is formed into fibers that are bonded with an organic resin to
create a wool-like material that is used as thermal or acoustical
insulation. The category includes, but is not limited to, the following
processes: Glass-melting furnace, marble forming, refining, fiber
forming, binder application, curing, and cooling. Facilities produce
bonded building insulation using an RS manufacturing line, and bonded
pipe insulation and other heavy-density products using an FA
manufacturing line. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the proposed amendments, contact the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the Internet. A redline version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this
action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-1042). Following publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same Web site. Information on the overall
residual risk and technology review (RTR) program is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

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

    For comments on this proposal, do not submit information containing
CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes
information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the
public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not
contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a comprehensive regulatory
process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has identified
categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA
section 112(b), CAA section 112(d) requires us to promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those
that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more
of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major
sources, the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and
are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards. Additionally, CAA section 112(h) allows the agency to
adopt a work practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard
only if it is ``not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous
air pollutant.'' This phrase is defined as applying where ``the
Administrator determines that the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' CAA section 112(h)(1) and
(2).
    The EPA is required to 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. CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review,
the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir.
2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2013).
    In this action, the EPA is proposing to complete a technology
review for RS lines in accordance with section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In
addition, the EPA is proposing to amend certain emission limits
promulgated on July 29, 2015, as part of the RTR for the standards for
FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

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

    The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on
June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The 1999 NESHAP, which is codified at 40
CFR part 63, subpart NNN, includes emissions standards for formaldehyde
emissions from new and existing RS lines. On July 29, 2015, we
published the final rule amendments to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP resulting from our completion of certain aspects
of the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk review and the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review for that NESHAP RTR. 80 FR 45280.

Specifically, the July 29, 2015, final rule:
    (1) Established a chromium emissions limit for gas-fired, glass-
melting furnaces under CAA section 112(f)(2);
    (2) revised the particulate matter limit for gas-fired, glass-
melting furnaces at major sources under CAA section 112(d)(6);
    (3) established work practice standards for hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h);
    (4) eliminated the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate and
established revised limits for formaldehyde and first-time limits for
methanol and phenol emitted from FA lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (d)(3);
    (5) eliminated FA line subcategories;
    (6) removed the exemption for startup and shutdown periods and
established work practice standards that apply during startup and
shutdown periods; and
    (7) established a chromium emission limits for both new and
existing gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at area sources in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(5).
    In the July 2015 rule, we did not finalize proposed emissions
limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from forming
cooling and collection processes on bonded RS lines under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3). We explained that this decision was based on
comments we received on our various proposals indicating that the
proposed limits likely relied on incorrect data. We explained that we
had issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) under CAA section
114 for purposes of obtaining the requisite data. 80 FR 45293. Since
then, we have received and evaluated responses to the ICR. More
recently, we have received new information and data from a facility
that operates FA lines that cast doubts on information and data that
the agency relied on in promulgating the July 2015 final rule emissions
limits for FA lines.

C. What is the purpose of this proposal?

    This notice proposes the following amendments to the NESHAP for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category:
     Readopting formaldehyde emission limits from bonded RS
lines under CAA section 112(d)(6);
     Establishing new emission limits for methanol from bonded
RS lines under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3);
     Establishing work practice standards for phenol from
bonded RS lines under CAA section 112(h);
     Amending the incinerator operating limits to include
cooling emissions from both RS and FA limits under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3);
     Establishing new subcategories of FA lines under CAA
section 112(d)(1);
     Establishing new emission limits for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol from most of the newly proposed FA line
subcategories under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3); and
     Setting work practice standards for phenol from one newly
proposed FA line subcategory under CAA section 112(h).
    We are requesting comments on only the specific proposed revisions
to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP that are presented in this
notice. We are not reopening or accepting comment on any other aspect
of the 2015 final rule or prior proposals. Taking final action on the
proposed revisions to the standards for RS lines would complete the
required CAA section 112(d)(6) review for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP.

III. What are the proposed rule requirements for RS lines and what is
our rationale?

A. What are the proposed rule requirements for formaldehyde emissions
from bonded RS lines?

    In the July 29, 2015, final rule, we did not finalize the proposed
revisions to the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions limits
from bonded RS lines based on comments indicating that emission data we
relied on for the proposed limits were not representative of either
contemporaneous operations or emissions from bonded RS lines. We
explained that the proposals were based on emissions and process data
available to the EPA at the time the various proposals were issued, and
since that time, approximately 95 percent of RS lines had undergone
process modifications that involved phasing out the use of a phenol-
formaldehyde (PF) binder and switching to HAP-free binders. We further
explained that we had determined that the product lines continuing to
operate using PF binders are not similar to the tested product lines in
size, end use, production rate, or loss on ignition (LOI) percent. In
sum, we posited that available data did not represent current industry
conditions, most notably, the significant reduction in the use of PF
binders in wool fiberglass manufacturing. We further explained that we
had issued an ICR, pursuant to our authority under CAA section 114, to
wool fiberglass facilities that operate bonded RS lines in order to
obtain updated emissions, process, and control device data for existing
RS manufacturing lines. 80 FR 45293. The first part of the ICR
requested general information regarding RS line process equipment and
control devices. ICR Part 1. Based on the information obtained under
ICR Part 1, the EPA issued the second part of the ICR that required
facilities to conduct emissions testing for formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol from bonded RS line processes. ICR Part 2. Specifically, ICR
Part 2 required subject facilities to collect stack emissions data from
RS lines during several testing events that represented operations
during multiple seasonal ambient conditions. In response to ICR Part 2,
the EPA received emissions test reports from the Johns Manville, Knauf
Insulation, and Owens Corning facilities. Table 2 of this preamble
summarizes the sampling program conducted under ICR Part 2.

                                    Table 2--Summary of RS Line Test Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                       Bonded RS line         Test dates          Sampling locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johns Manville--Defiance, OH..........  Line 89..................      6/28/2016,  Collection Module A (Venturi
                                                                        8/24/2016   scrubber 1 outlet).
                                                                                Cooling table (Venturi
                                                                                scrubber 2 outlet).
                                                                                Curing oven (regenerative
                                                                                thermal oxidizer (RTO)
                                                                                outlet).
Knauf Insulation--Shelbyville, IN.....  Lines 611, 612, 613, and       6/15/2016,  Combined exhaust from Lines
                                         614.                            8/2/2016   611-614 forming process and
                                                                                Lines 613 and 614 cooling
                                                                                process (wet electrostatic
                                                                                precipitator outlet).
                                                                                Curing oven (RTO outlet)
Owens Corning--Waxahachie, TX.........  Line V1..................    5/17-18/2016  Forming process (spray
                                                                                chamber outlet).
                                                                                Cooling (high-efficiency air
                                                                                filter outlet).
                                                                                Curing oven (incinerator
                                                                                outlet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing and evaluating responses to the CAA section 114 ICR,
we have now determined that there are currently three facilities
operating six bonded RS lines, as compared to 54 RS manufacturing lines
at the time of our November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72799). As shown in
Table 2 of this preamble, we have also determined that all RS lines are
equipped with air pollution control devices and, most importantly, that
emissions from all RS lines are significantly lower than the existing
MACT standards. Additionally, we were able to confirm the phase out or
elimination of PF binders which facilities have achieved by switching
to HAP-free binders in wool fiberglass manufacturing processes. This is
consistent with our November 2011 proposal where we explained that
``[d]ue to industry's efforts to replace phenol-formaldehyde binders
more than 95 percent of formaldehyde, phenol and methanol emissions had
been reduced (or will be by 2012).'' 76 FR 72803.
    As previously explained, CAA section 112(d)(6) requires us to
``review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards
promulgated under this section.'' We have interpreted CAA section
112(d)(6) as providing us the authority ``to review the section 112(d)
standards considering developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies.'' 70 FR 2008, April 15, 2008. The agency previously
promulgated a limit for formaldehyde emissions from RS lines under CAA
112(d) and, thus, has decided that it is more appropriate to set limits
for formaldehyde emissions from RS lines under CAA section 112(d)(6)
instead of under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), as previously proposed.
    As also explained in our November 2011 proposal, our technology
review, under CAA section 112(d)(6), focuses on the identification and
evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the 1999 NESHAP was promulgated.
Where we identify developments to inform our decision of whether it is
``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the
technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated
costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts, as well as
considering the emission reductions. We also consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting
existing sources. Based on our analyses of the available data and
information, we identified developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies.
    For RS bonded lines, we considered any of the following to be a
``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not considered during development of the original MACT standards.
     Any improvements in the performance of any add-on control
technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered
during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in
additional emissions reduction.
     Any work practice or operational procedure to reduce
emissions that was not identified or considered during development of
the original MACT standards.
     Any process changes or pollution prevention alternatives
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards.
     Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
    In addition to reviewing the responses to the ICR, we reviewed
facility operating permits and searched the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse (RBLC) in our investigation of developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies for RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA established the RBLC to provide a central database
of air pollution technology information (including technologies
required in source-specific permits) to promote the sharing of
information on control technologies among regulatory agencies. The
RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations
made by states, local, and tribal agencies. Control technologies,
classified as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), or Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate (LAER) apply to stationary sources depending on whether the
sources are existing or new, and on the size, age, and location of
the facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a
case-by-case basis, usually by state or local permitting agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 2 of this preamble above, various processes on RS
lines are equipped with air pollution control devices as compared to at
the time of the promulgation of the 1999 MACT. As also previously
explained, current formaldehyde emissions are well below the 1999
levels for two reasons:
    (1) Almost all bonded lines have replaced the older PF resins with
non-PF resins. These reduced the source category formaldehyde emissions
by approximately 95 percent:
    (2) Improvements in control technology being used have reduced
emissions on the remaining lines that still use PF resins.
    In light of the most notably significant reduction of formaldehyde
emissions, we are, thus, proposing to conclude that there are
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for RS lines under CAA section
112(d)(6).

B. What are the proposed rule requirements for methanol emissions from
bonded RS lines?

    We are proposing to establish emission standards for methanol
emissions from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes
on new and existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities based on our evaluation of the data submitted in response to
the ICR discussed above. These proposed standards differ from the
methanol limits proposed in April 2013 and November 2014 under CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3). As previously explained, we did not finalize
those proposed standards based on comments we received on our various
proposals, indicating that our proposals were premised on questionable
data given industry changes since collection of the data. In addition,
as previously explained, we issued and collected additional data that
is representative of current industry operations under an ICR
subsequent to promulgation of our July 29, 2015, final rule. The
revised limits proposed in this action are based on data received in
response to the recent ICR discussed above.

C. What are the proposed rule requirements for phenol emissions from
bonded RS lines?

    We are proposing work practice standards for phenol emissions from
combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes on new and
existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
under CAA section 112(h). In order to promulgate a work practice
standard in lieu of an emission standard, the EPA must demonstrate that
measurement of emissions is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. In the case of bonded RS lines, our review of
more recent CAA section 114 test data indicated that over 60 percent of
the test results were values showing that phenol emissions in the
exhaust gas stream were below the detection limit of EPA Method 318.
This proposal represents a change from the standards for phenol
emissions from bonded RS

lines that were proposed in April 2013 and November 2014.
    We regard situations where, as here, the majority of measurements
are below detection limits as measurements that are not
``technologically practicable'' within the meaning of CAA section
112(h). We reasoned that ``application of measurement methodologies''
under CAA section 112(h) must also mean that a measurement has some
reasonable relation to what the source is emitting (i.e., that the
measurement yields a meaningful value). We further explained that
unreliable measurements raise issues of practicability, feasibility,
and enforceability. Additionally, we posited that the application of
measurement methodology would also not be ``practicable due to . . .
economic limitation'' within the meaning of CAA section 112(h) because
it would result in cost expended to produce analytically suspect
measurements. 78 FR 22387. This proposal to establish a work practice
standard for phenol differs from previous proposals where emission
limits were proposed for phenol because the EPA has concluded that the
data that supported setting emission limits in previous proposals is no
longer valid.
    We are seeking comments on only these issues or aspects of
requirements that are being presented in this notice. We are not
reopening any other aspects of the July 29, 2015, final rule and thus,
are not soliciting comments on them.

IV. What are the proposed rule amendments resulting from our technology
review and our proposed decisions?

A. What are the results and proposed decisions for formaldehyde
emissions from RS lines based on our technology review?

    We are proposing to readopt the current 1.2 pound per ton (lb/ton)
glass pulled emissions limits for formaldehyde from combined fiber/
collection, curing, and cooling processes on existing, new, and
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6) as part of our technology
review. Based on the technology review conducted for the bonded RS
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities, we have determined
that emissions are well controlled on bonded RS line processes. As
previously explained, our evaluation of the ICR also led us to conclude
that actual formaldehyde emissions from RS lines at all wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities are significantly lower than are allowed under
the 1999 NESHAP. We believe that reductions in formaldehyde emissions
since promulgation of the 1999 MACT rule are mainly directly related to
improvements in two areas: (1) Improvements in control technology
(e.g., improved bag materials, replacement of older baghouses) and (2)
the use of electrostatic precipitators. We also note that total
formaldehyde emissions have been significantly reduced (by
approximately 95 percent) since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP due
primarily to the use of non-PF binders.
    Based on these data and new information, we evaluated what
formaldehyde emission limit might be appropriate. The EPA's approach
for developing the proposed formaldehyde emission limits for existing
and new bonded RS lines sources under CAA section 112(d)(6) are
explained in the memorandum titled ``Technology Review for Formaldehyde
Emitted from Rotary Spin Lines,'' which is available in the docket for
this proposed action. Data and information presented in this memorandum
could support amended limits of 0.23 lb/ton glass pulled for existing
sources and 0.24 lb/ton glass pulled for new sources. Further,
according to the emissions data collected from the ICR, all wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating bonded RS lines would be
able to meet these emission limits, given that the ICR suggests that
the formaldehyde emissions from RS lines are much lower than the
current MACT standard. Therefore, these limits would not require
additional HAP emission controls or limits for other equipment or
process. In addition, if adopted, regulated sources would not be
expected to incur any additional costs.
    However, we are not proposing to lower the formaldehyde limits, and
are instead proposing to readopt the current limits. This is because,
as previously explained, the source category has already achieved
approximately 95-percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions due to the
replacement of the PF binders with non-PF binders, and which, as
explained below, results in major sources becoming area sources. We
also believe that the industry trend will likely result in the
replacement of PF binders completely and, thus, view the lowering of
standards as likely penalizing sources that have been slower in
embracing the industry trend. As also previously explained, our review
of the ICR indicated that all bonded RS lines are equipped with air
pollution control devices as compared to the time of promulgation of
the 1999 MACT standards, and that these various control technologies
have resulted in significantly lower emissions than the existing MACT
standards. We believe that sources will not uninstall these control
technologies at this stage and, thus, that the lower emissions remain
somewhat assured even without our lowering of the existing MACT
standards.
    As part of the technology review, we also considered mandating the
use of non-PF binders for lines currently using them, and/or mandating
the use of non-PF binders for all bonded lines. We are not proposing
this option, however, because, as explained in our April 15, 2013,
proposal, facilities cease to be subject to the major source standards
once they phase out the use of PF binders. ``A facility that does not
use phenol-formaldehyde binders does not manufacture a bonded product,
and therefore does not have a rotary spin manufacturing line or a flame
attenuation manufacturing line as defined in the NESHAP. If the
facility does not have a rotary spin manufacturing line or a flame
attenuation manufacturing line it does not meet the definition of wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility and therefore, would no longer be
subject to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP,'' 78 FR 22375,
April 15, 2013. As also previously explained, industry continues to
actively engage in the phase-out of PF binders and have achieved
approximately 95-percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions as a
result. We also believe this industry trend will continue given
industry indications that non-PF binders are actually less expensive
than PF binders. Therefore, cost considerations will move the industry
in this direction without the need for regulation.
    We also note that for some products, customer specifications
preclude the use of any currently available non-PF binders. If PF
binders were banned, these products would likely no longer be produced.
    We are specifically requesting comment on the proposed readoption
of the current formaldehyde limit rather than setting new limits based
on information and data submitted under the ICR.

B. What are the proposed requirements for methanol emissions from RS
lines?

    Based on the new information and data that the agency received
pursuant to the ICR, we are proposing to establish limits for methanol
emissions from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes
on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.

    To determine the MACT floor for methanol, we applied the 99-percent
upper predictive limit (UPL) method to the best-performing five sources
in the test data collected under Part 2 of the ICR. The UPL analysis is
explained in the memorandum titled ``Development of Proposed Emission
Limits for Methanol Emissions from Rotary Spin Lines in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category,'' which is available in the
docket for this proposed action. We considered beyond-the-floor options
for methanol for all combined collection and curing operation designs
as required by CAA section 112(d)(2). However, we are not proposing any
limits based on the beyond-the-floor analyses for methanol for these
sources because of the potential adverse impacts of additional
controls, including the cost of control devices, non-air environmental
impacts, and energy implications associated with use of these
additional controls. The beyond-the-floor analysis is presented in the
memorandum titled ``Control Costs for Rotary Spin Lines,'' which is
available in the docket for this proposed action. Table 3 of this
preamble presents the proposed methanol emission limits for the
combined fiber collection/formation, curing, and cooling processes on
existing, new, and reconstructed RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.

 Table 3--Proposed Methanol Emission Limits (lb/ton of Glass Pulled) for
                                RS Lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              New and
                    Existing sources                       reconstructed
                                                              sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.06....................................................            0.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission limits for methanol in this proposed action, if
finalized, would codify the level of emissions currently being achieved
on RS line processes by add-on control devices (e.g., gas scrubbers,
thermal oxidizers).
    This proposal differs from and modifies our prior proposals.
Details regarding previously proposed methanol emission limits can be
found in the April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November 2014 (79 FR 68029)
proposals.

C. What are the proposed requirements for phenol emissions from RS
lines?

    We are proposing to establish work practice standards for phenol
emissions from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes
on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h). The EPA's review of
the test data collected under Part 2 of the ICR identified that
approximately 60 percent of the concentration values were reported as
below the detection limit of EPA Method 318 (Extractive Fourier
Transform Infrared (FTIR) Method for Measurement of Emissions from the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries). Considering statistical
validity, we concluded that, in cases where at least 55 percent of the
test data are below the detection limit of the respective test method,
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for
phenol from RS lines. Under CAA section 112(h), we are instead
proposing a work practice that represents MACT.
    To identify an appropriate work practice standard for phenol, the
EPA reviewed the current NESHAP requirements regarding testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping of resins and binders used in
manufacturing wool fiberglass products. The EPA also discussed possible
phenol work practice standards with industry representatives.
    Because of difficulties in measuring phenol, we cannot develop
numerical emission limits; however, we believe that a requirement to
establish the free-phenol content of the binder resin used during the
compliance demonstration for formaldehyde and methanol and the
associated recordkeeping requirements for resin shipments and binder
formulations represents MACT for phenol. Consequently, we are proposing
to require owners or operators to establish the free-phenol content of
the binder resin used during the formaldehyde and methanol compliance
demonstration based on vendor specifications, and to require
recordkeeping of the free-phenol contents of each resin shipment
received and each resin used in binder formulation. We are also
proposing to revise the emission standards specified in 40 CFR
63.1382(c)(9) to require that owners or operators must not use a resin
in binder formulations that contains a higher free-phenol content than
they established during the initial or 5-year compliance demonstrations
for formaldehyde and methanol.
    This proposal differs from and modifies our prior proposals.
Details regarding previously proposed phenol emission limits can be
found in the April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November 2014 (79 FR 68029)
proposals.

D. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    We are proposing that wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that
operate bonded RS lines that commenced construction or reconstruction
on or before August 29, 2017 must demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart no later than 2 years after the effective
date of this rule. Affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after August 29, 2017 must demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of this subpart no later than the effective date of
the rule or upon start-up, whichever is later. CAA section 112(i)(3)
requires that existing sources must comply as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 3 years after promulgation of standards
under CAA section 112(d). (``Section 112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum
compliance period applies generally to any emissions standard . . .
promulgated under [section 112].'' Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA,
716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). This proposal reflects our belief
that sources would need this amount of time to comply with the various
proposed requirements and is a result of our review of the more recent
information and data that these proposed requirements are based on. For
instance, the proposed work practice standards for phenol, which call
for vendor specifications, would likely require vendor bids and
selections as well as time to establish the free-phenol content of
binder resin and the likely institution of new practices to address the
record keeping requirements when finalized.

V. What other changes are we proposing to the NESHAP in this action?

    In this action, we are also proposing amendments to the incinerator
operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to clearly indicate
that the subsection applies to cooling emissions. Incinerators would be
required to control the final formaldehyde, methanol, and, where
applicable, phenol emissions from forming, curing, and cooling
processes on both FA and bonded RS lines.
    We are proposing to allow owners or operators that conducted
emissions tests in 2016 in response to the EPA's ICR to submit those
performance test results to demonstrate initial compliance with the new
methanol emission limits for RS lines, rather than conducting
additional tests.

VI. What are the proposed amendments applicable to FA lines?

    We are proposing the following three subcategories for FA lines
based on recent information indicating that there are technical or
design differences that distinguish sources that utilize FA lines:

(1) Aerospace and Air Filtration (Aerospace); (2) Heating, Ventilation,
and Air Conditioning (HVAC); and (3) Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM). (In establishing standards under CAA section 112(d), the EPA may
``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or sub-category.'' CAA section 112(d)(1). NRDC v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). We are also proposing revisions to the
July 2015 final rule formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol limits to
reflect these new subcategories.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On July 27, 2017, the EPA published a direct final rule to
extend the compliance date for the FA lines in order to provide time
for the EPA to review new emissions data and revise the standards
where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2017, the EPA received notification from Johns Manville
that several of the emission test reports the company submitted to the
EPA to support development of the 2015 NESHAP emission limits for FA
lines contained errors in the analytical results for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol. According to Johns Manville and their testing
contractor, the errors caused the test run-level values for pollutant
mass to be biased low, particularly for methanol and phenol (i.e.,
actual pollutant emissions were higher than reported). Johns Manville
provided the corrected reports for the facilities affected by the
miscalculations to the EPA after promulgation of the July 29, 2015,
final rule. Upon further review of the data, including the rationale
for setting the 2015 NESHAP emission limits, the EPA has determined
that there are several technical questions regarding the 2015 NESHAP
emission limits that cannot be resolved using the corrected reports
provided by Johns Manville. Consequently, in May 2017 Johns Manville
provided the EPA with more recent test data for FA lines that were
collected in 2016 and 2017.
    The EPA's review of the new test data confirmed that all FA line
emissions points at each facility were sampled and pollutant
concentrations were measured using test methods allowed by 40 CFR 63,
subpart NNN (EPA Methods 316 and 318 for formaldehyde, EPA Methods 308
and 318 for methanol, and EPA Method 318 for phenol). However, the EPA
identified that the phenol emissions from certain FA lines were 1 to 2
orders of magnitude higher than the phenol emissions from other FA
lines. The EPA discussed this observation with Johns Manville
representatives who acknowledged that they use different binder
formulations on certain FA lines to manufacture specific types of wool
fiberglass products, and that the different binder formulations result
in higher or lower phenol emissions, depending on the composition of
the binder. As previously explained, in cases where we identify
differences in size, class, or type that significantly affect emissions
levels, we may create subcategories when setting emission limits. This
is the case here, where the phenol content of the resins is different
based on the product type. The industry identified three types of FA
line products: (1) Aerospace; (2) HVAC; and (3) OEM. The type of
product determines the phenol content of the resin and, ultimately, the
level of phenol emissions.
    Based on the EPA's review of the new emissions data, the EPA is
proposing standards for the three subcategories of FA line products as
shown in Table 4.

                                 Table 4--Proposed Emission Limits for FA Lines
                                                    [lb/ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                New and
                  Subcategory                               Pollutant                Existing      reconstructed
                                                                                sources         sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace.....................................  Formaldehyde....................           26.25           16.83
                                                Methanol........................            8.69            3.98
HVAC..........................................  Formaldehyde....................            2.81            2.38
                                                Methanol........................            7.29            1.44
                                                Phenol..........................            0.38            0.38
OEM...........................................  Formaldehyde....................            4.66            2.60
                                                Methanol........................            5.32            0.98
                                                Phenol..........................           27.19           20.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Aerospace subcategory, we are proposing a work practice
standard that represents MACT for phenol because approximately 80
percent of the available phenol data are below the detection limit of
the respective test method. Consistent with our proposed work practice
for phenol emissions from RS lines, we are proposing to require owners
or operators to establish the free-phenol content of the binder resin
used during the formaldehyde and methanol compliance demonstration for
the Aerospace subcategory, based on vendor specifications, and to
require recordkeeping of the free-phenol contents of each resin
shipment received and each resin used in binder formulation. We are
also proposing to revise the emission standards specified in 40 CFR
63.1382(c)(9) to require that owners or operators must not use a resin
in binder formulations that contain a higher free-phenol content than
they established during the initial or 5-year compliance demonstrations
for formaldehyde and methanol.
    We are specifically requesting comments and supporting process and
emissions data related to the proposed revisions to the promulgated
emissions limits for FA lines.

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts

A. How many sources are affected?

    Based on the responses to the 2016 ICR, only three wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities continue to use RS lines to manufacture a
bonded product. These three facilities operate six bonded RS lines that
would be affected by the revised emission limits. The EPA is not
currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded
RS lines.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The proposed standards codify and maintain the emissions reductions
achieved by the industry due primarily to the phase-out of PF binders
since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP. Based on the test data received
in response to the CAA section 114 ICR, all facilities with bonded RS
lines currently meet the proposed emission limits for formaldehyde and
methanol. Therefore, the proposed emission limits for

formaldehyde and methanol will not result in further HAP emissions
reductions. Also, we do not anticipate secondary environmental impacts
from the proposed amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP because owners or operators will not need to install additional
control devices to meet the proposed standards.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Because the existing facilities will not need to install add-on
control devices or implement process modifications to comply with the
proposed emissions standards, and because the EPA is allowing
facilities to use the test reports submitted in response to the ICR
Part 2 to demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed emission
limits, the three facilities subject to the proposed emission limits
will not incur increased costs for installing or upgrading emissions
control systems. However, the three facilities subject to this proposal
will each incur costs ($4,377/year/facility, 2016 dollars) related to
the submission of initial notifications and notifications of compliance
status for the formaldehyde and methanol emission limits, and
additional monitoring and recordkeeping activities related to the
phenol work practice standard.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses evaluate changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
directly affected markets are significant, impacts on other markets are
also examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a
rule.
    The proposed standards for RS lines at wool fiberglass facilities
do not impose control costs or additional testing costs on affected
facilities. However, affected facilities will have reporting
requirements (i.e., an initial notification and a notification of
compliance status) associated with the proposed formaldehyde and
methanol emission limits and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
associated with the phenol work practice standard. We estimate that the
total annual burden for each facility associated with the proposed
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to be
approximately $4,377/year/facility, and the total annual cost of this
proposal is approximately $13,131/year (2016 dollars). The economic
impacts associated with the costs of this proposal are quite low; each
affected firm is estimated to experience an impact of less than 0.01
percent of their revenues.

E. What are the benefits?

    Based on the data collected under ICR Part 2, the actual
formaldehyde emissions from all bonded RS lines are lower than the
level allowed under the 1999 NESHAP. Although the proposed standards do
not achieve further emissions reductions, the proposed emission limits
for formaldehyde and methanol ensure that the emissions reductions that
have been achieved since promulgation of the original 40 CFR 63,
subpart NNN in 1999 will persist into the future and that emissions
will not increase.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed action does not contain any 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 proposed action
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments
or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed 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.

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

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action would revise
the existing emissions limit for formaldehyde and establish new
emission limits for methanol and a work practice standard for phenol
emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
action.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This proposed action involves technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area
Source NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network
(NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
    As discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR
68029), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, we conducted searches for
EPA Methods 5,

318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. These searches
did not identify any VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule
in lieu of EPA reference methods.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). It
does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This
action would make corrections and updates to an existing protocol for
assessing the precision and accuracy of alternative test methods to
ensure they are comparable to the methods otherwise required; thus, it
does not modify or affect the impacts to human health or the
environment of any standards for which it may be used.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 18, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations as
follows:

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

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

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

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

0
2. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding the definitions, in
alphabetical order, for ``Aerospace and Air Filtration Products,''
``Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Products,'' and
``Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Products'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1381   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Aerospace and air filtration products means bonded wool fiberglass
insulation manufactured for the thermal and acoustical insulation of
aircraft and/or the air filtration markets.
* * * * *
    Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) products means
bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured for use in HVAC systems
for the distribution of air or for thermal and acoustical insulation of
HVAC distribution lines.
* * * * *
    Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products means bonded wool
fiberglass insulation manufactured for OEM entities that fabricate the
insulation into parts used as thermal or acoustical insulation in
products including, but not limited to, appliances, refrigeration
units, and office interior equipment.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8)(i),
and (c)(9) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1382  Emission standards.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) The owner or operator must operate each incinerator used to
comply with the emissions limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart such that any 3-hour block
average temperature in the firebox does not fall below the average
established during the performance test as specified in Sec.  63.1384.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1
hour when the monitored process parameter level(s) is outside the
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in Sec.
63.1384 for the process modification(s) used to comply with the
emissions limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified
in Table 2 to this subpart, and complete corrective actions in a timely
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
* * * * *
    (9) The owner or operator must use a resin in the formulation of
binder such that the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the
resin used do not exceed the respective ranges contained in the
specification for the resin used during the performance test as
specified in Sec.  63.1384.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h),
(i)(1), and (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1383  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to comply with
the emissions limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines
specified in Table 2 to this subpart shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures
and records the operating temperature in the firebox of each
incinerator.
* * * * *
    (h) The owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device
to control formaldehyde and methanol emissions must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously monitor and
record the gas pressure drop across each scrubber and the scrubbing
liquid flow rate to each scrubber according to the procedures in the
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The pressure drop monitor
must be certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within 250 pascals (1 inch water gauge) over its operating
range, and the flow rate monitor must be certified by its manufacturer
to be accurate within 5 percent over its operating range.
The owner or operator must also continuously monitor and record the
feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing liquid.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator who uses process modifications to control
formaldehyde and methanol emissions must establish a correlation
between formaldehyde and methanol emissions and the process
parameter(s) to be monitored.
* * * * *
    (j) The owner or operator must monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of each resin shipment received
and of each resin used in the formulation of binder.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising introductory paragraph (a),
(a)(3), (a)(9), and introductory paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1384  Performance test requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.1382. Compliance is demonstrated
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each
of the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.1382. The owner or
operator shall conduct the

performance test according to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A and in this section. If the owner or operator conducted an emissions
test in 2016 according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.1384(a)(9) and Sec.  63.1385 in response to the EPA's Information
Collection Request, the owner or operator can use the results of the
emissions test to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limits for rotary spin lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (3) During each performance test, the owner or operator must
monitor and record the glass pull rate for each glass-melting furnace
and, if different, the glass pull rate for each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line. Record the
glass pull rate every 15 minutes during any performance test required
by this subpart and determine the arithmetic average of the recorded
measurements for each test run and calculate the average of the three
test runs. If a rotary spin or flame attenuation line shares one or
more emissions points with another rotary spin or flame attenuation
line(s), owners or operators can conduct the performance test while
each of the process lines with the shared emissions point(s) is
operating as specified in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, rather than
testing each of the shared lines separately. In these cases, owners or
operators must use the combined glass pull rate for the process lines
with the shared emissions point(s) to demonstrate compliance with the
emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (9) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart must
conduct performance tests using the resin with the highest free-
formaldehyde content. During the performance test of each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated
by this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the
free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the resin, the binder
formulation used, and the product LOI and density.
* * * * *
    (c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde and methanol for RS
manufacturing lines; formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for FA
manufacturing lines; and chromium compounds for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces, use the following equation:
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) as follows:

Sec.  63.1385  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (8) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the
determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin. The owner or
operator shall use vendor specifications to determine the free-phenol
content of resin.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) The free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of each binder
batch and the LOI and density for each product manufactured on a rotary
spin manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line subject
to the provisions of this subpart, and the free-formaldehyde and free-
phenol contents of each resin shipment received and of each resin used
in the binder formulation;
* * * * *
0
8. Table 2 to subpart NNN of part 63 is amended by:
0
 a. Revising entries 7 and 8;
0
b. Redesignating entries 9 through 13 as entries 11 through 15;
0
c. Adding new entries 9 and 10;
0
d. Revising newly redesignated entries 13 through 15;
0
e. Adding new entries 16 through 19; and
0
 g. Adding new footnote 5.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

                    Table 2 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Emissions Limits and Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          And you commenced       Your emission limits   And you must comply by:
         If your source is a:               construction:               are: \1\                   \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
7. Rotary spin manufacturing line....  On or before March 31,   1.2 lb formaldehyde per  June 14, 2002.
                                        1997.                    ton of glass pulled
                                                                 \5\.
8. Rotary spin manufacturing line....  After March 31, 1997...  0.8 lb formaldehyde per  June 14, 1999.
                                                                 ton of glass pulled
                                                                 \5\.
9. Rotary spin manufacturing line....  On or before November    0.32 lb formaldehyde     Date 3 years after
                                        25, 2011.                per ton of glass         publication of the
                                                                 pulled.                  final rule.
                                                                1.06 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.
10. Rotary spin manufacturing line...  After November 25, 2011  0.24 lb formaldehyde     Date of publication of
                                                                 per ton of glass         the final rule.\4\
                                                                 pulled.
                                                                0.65 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.
11. Flame attenuation line             After March 31, 1997     7.8 lb formaldehyde per  June 14, 1999.
 manufacturing a heavy-density          but on or before         ton of glass pulled
 product.                               November 25, 2011.       \5\.
12. Flame attenuation line             On or before March 31,   6.8 lb formaldehyde per  June 14, 2002.
 manufacturing a pipe product.          1997.                    ton of glass pulled
                                                                 \5\.
13. Flame attenuation line             After March 31, 1997     6.8 lb formaldehyde per  June 14, 1999.
 manufacturing a pipe product.          but before November      ton of glass pulled
                                        25, 2011.                \5\.
14. Flame attenuation line             On or before November    26.25 lb formaldehyde    Date 1 year after
 manufacturing an Aerospace product.    25, 2011.                per ton of glass         publication of the
                                                                 pulled.                  final rule.
                                                                8.69 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.

15. Flame attenuation line             After November 25, 2011  16.83 lb formaldehyde    Date of publication of
 manufacturing an Aerospace product.                             per ton of glass         the final rule.\4\
                                                                 pulled.
                                                                3.98 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.
16. Flame attenuation line             On or before November    2.81 lb formaldehyde     Date 1 year after
 manufacturing an HVAC product.         25, 2011.                per ton of glass         publication of the
                                                                 pulled.                  final rule.
                                                                7.29 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.
                                                                0.38 lb phenol per ton
                                                                 of glass pulled.
17. Flame attenuation line             After November 25, 2011  2.38 lb formaldehyde     Date of publication of
 manufacturing an HVAC product.                                  per ton of glass         the final rule.\4\
                                                                 pulled.
                                                                1.44 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.
                                                                0.38 lb phenol per ton
                                                                 of glass pulled.
18. Flame attenuation line             On or before November    4.66 lb formaldehyde     Date 1 year after
 manufacturing an OEM product.          25, 2011.                per ton of glass         publication of the
                                                                 pulled.                  final rule.
                                                                5.32 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.
                                                                27.19 lb phenol per ton
                                                                 of glass pulled.
19. Flame attenuation line             After November 25, 2011  2.60 lb formaldehyde     Date of publication of
 manufacturing an OEM product.                                   per ton of glass         the final rule.\4\
                                                                 pulled.
                                                                0.98 lb methanol per
                                                                 ton of glass pulled.
                                                                20.69 lb phenol per ton
                                                                 of glass pulled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This limit does not apply after date 3 years after publication of the final rule.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-18211 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P