[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6676-6701]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01685]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309; FRL-9988-79-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT47

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), electronic reporting, and
clarification of rule provisions. These final amendments address
emissions during periods of SSM; add electronic reporting; revise
certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and
include other miscellaneous technical and editorial changes. These
final amendments will result in improved compliance and implementation
of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 28, 2019. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February
28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Keith Barnett, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA Region 5
(Mail Code E-19J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology

MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Office of Safety and Health Administration
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SDS safety data sheet
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Background information. On April 6, 2018, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP based on
our RTR (83 FR 14997). In this action, we are finalizing decisions and
revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on
the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in
``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production Risk and Technology Review,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0309. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source
category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the
source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category in our April 6, 2018, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category
    C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category
    D. Other Revisions To Monitoring, Performance Testing, and
Reporting Requirements for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category
    E. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

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

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wet-formed-fiberglass-mat-production-national-emission-standards.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by April

29, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by
this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3); National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 640
(D.C. Cir. 2000). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 83 FR 14984, April 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. What is the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP
on April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17824). The standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH. The Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
industry consists of facilities that use formaldehyde-based resins to
bond glass fibers together to make wet-formed fiberglass mat, which can
be used as a substrate for multiple roofing products, as reinforcement
for various plastic, cement, and gypsum products, and in miscellaneous
specialty products. Methanol is also present in some, but not all,
resins used to produce wet-formed fiberglass mat. In a typical wet-
formed fiberglass mat production line, glass fibers are mixed with
water and emulsifiers in large mixing vats to form a slurry of fibers
and water. The glass fiber slurry is then pumped to a mat forming
machine, where it is dispensed in a uniform curtain over a moving
screen belt. The mat is then carried beneath a binder saturator, where
binder solution is uniformly applied onto the surface of the mat. This
resin-binder application process includes the screen passing over a
vacuum, which draws away the excess binder solution for recycling. The
mat of fibers and binder then passes into drying and curing ovens that
use heated air to remove excess moisture and harden (i.e., cure) the
binder. Upon exiting the ovens, the mat is cooled, trimmed, wound, and
packaged to product specifications. The primary HAP emitted during
production of wet-formed fiberglass mat is formaldehyde, which is
classified as a probable human carcinogen; and methanol, which is not
classified as a carcinogen. The source category covered by this MACT
standard currently includes seven facilities.
    The affected source is each wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and
curing oven. The NESHAP regulates emissions

of HAP through emission standards for formaldehyde, which is also used
as a surrogate for total HAP emissions. Facilities subject to the
NESHAP must meet either a mass emission limit or percentage reduction
requirement for each drying and curing oven. The emission standards are
the same for new and existing drying and curing ovens. The emission
limits for the exhaust from new and existing drying and curing ovens
are: (1) A maximum formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03 kilograms per
megagram of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds per ton of
wet-formed fiberglass mat produced) or (2) a minimum of 96-percent
destruction efficiency of formaldehyde. Thermal oxidizers are used by
facilities subject to the NESHAP to control their drying and curing
oven exhausts.

C. What changes did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category in our April 6, 2018, proposal?

    On April 6, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP, that took
into consideration the RTR analyses (83 FR 14997, April 6, 2018). Based
on the residual risk analysis, we proposed that risks from the source
category are acceptable, that the NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, and that a more stringent standard is
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Accordingly,
we did not propose revisions to the numerical emission limits based on
our residual risk analysis. Based on the technology review, we proposed
that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Accordingly, we did not propose any changes under the
technology review. In addition, we proposed amendments to the SSM
provisions and revisions to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the following three ways: (1) Performance test results
would be submitted electronically; (2) compliance reports would be
submitted semiannually when deviations from applicable standards occur;
and (3) parameter monitoring would no longer be required during periods
when a non-HAP binder is being used. We also proposed miscellaneous
technical and editorial changes.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source category pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(6) and (f)(2). This action also finalizes other changes to the
NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions and a change to the
proposed definition of ``shutdown'' to reflect comments we received on
the proposal. Other changes include revisions to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to require electronic
submittal of performance test report results; submittal of semiannual
compliance reports for when deviations from applicable standards occur;
and removal of parameter monitoring and performance testing
requirements during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used. We are
also finalizing miscellaneous technical and editorial changes that we
proposed in April 2018. This action also reflects several changes to
certain aspects of the April 2018 proposal that are in response to
comments received during the public comment period. These changes are
described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?

    This section introduces the final amendments to the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA
section 112(f). As proposed, we are finalizing our finding that risks
remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for this
source category are acceptable. Also as proposed, we are finalizing the
determination that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Therefore, we are not finalizing any
revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses
conducted under CAA section 112(f).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not finalizing
revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    We are finalizing proposed amendments to the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM.
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
    As proposed, we have eliminated the SSM exemption, which is
contained in 40 CFR 63.2986(g)(1). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times.
As explained at proposal, we have also revised Table 2 to 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHH (the General Provisions applicability table), in
several respects. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement for a source to develop an SSM
plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that are related to the SSM exemption as
described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized again here.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account periods of startup and shutdown and, for the reasons explained
in the April 2018 proposal and below, has not established alternate
standards for those periods.
    As explained at proposal, periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's
operations. As also explained at proposal, because thermal oxidizer
controls are employed during all periods that a drying and curing oven
is processing binder-infused fiberglass mat, there is no need to
establish separate formaldehyde standards for periods of startup and
shutdown (83 FR 14998). We did, however, propose definitions of startup
and shutdown for purposes of this subpart. The proposed definitions
clarified that it is not the setting in and cessation of operation of
the drying and curing oven (i.e., affected source) that accurately
define startup and shutdown, but, rather, the setting in and cessation
of operation of the drying and curing of any binder-infused fiberglass
mat. We also explained that it is this binder-infused fiberglass mat,
not the ovens themselves, that emit HAP. Therefore, we found that it
was appropriate to establish definitions for startup and shutdown based
on the setting in and

cessation of operation of the drying and curing oven. Further, in
response to comments on our proposal, we have made minor clarifications
to the definition of shutdown in the final rule in order to account for
the residence time of the binder-infused fiberglass mat in the oven,
and to aid facilities in establishing periods of shutdown when
emissions from the drying oven cease. We have also revised definitions
for startup and shutdown to consistently refer to the material being
processed as ``binder-infused fiberglass mat.'' Finally, we have added
a definition of ``maximum residence time'' to 40 CFR 63.3004 and a
formula that facilities must use to determine the maximum residence
time for each production line.
    This reflects the Agency's response to comments received on our
proposal that indicated shutdown would end when the maximum residence
time has elapsed after binder-infused fiberglass mat is no longer
entering the oven. Typically, residence times are of short duration for
wet-formed fiberglass mat lines, and are on the order of less than 10
seconds to less than 1 minute. The maximum residence time is the
longest time that a particular point on the fiberglass mat could remain
in the drying and curing oven, and is based on the length of the drying
and curing oven and the slowest line speed normally operated on the
line, excluding periods of ramping up to speed during startup. Air
pollution controls continue to operate through shutdown, and all
emissions from the ovens continue to be routed to the air pollution
control equipment until shutdown is completed.
    With regard to malfunctions, the EPA did not propose separate
standards for periods of malfunction. At proposal, we explained our
interpretation of CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards. We noted that this reading has been upheld as
reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-
610 (2016). The EPA further explained that, ``although no statutory
language compels EPA to set standards for malfunctions, EPA has the
discretion to do so where feasible. EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions'' (83 FR 14999).
    The EPA is not finalizing separate standards for periods of
malfunction. While we requested comment for work practice standards
during periods of malfunction, and received some information in support
of such standards, we did not receive sufficient information on which
to base a malfunction standard.
    As further explained at proposal, ``[i]n the event that a source
fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate
response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the
source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including
preventive and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to
ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider
whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d)
standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable
and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). If the EPA
determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a
source for violation of an emission standard is warranted, the source
can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the
Federal District Court will determine what, if any, relief is
appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions.
Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can
consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative
penalties are appropriate'' (83 FR 14999).
    The following aspects for the SSM provisions are being finalized as
proposed, with minor corrections and clarifications.
1. 40 CFR 63.2986 General Duty
    As discussed at proposal, we are revising the General Provisions
table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' At
proposal, we explained that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general
duty to minimize emissions and contains language that we consider no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We proposed adding general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.2986(g) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. We
further explained that the current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM, and
that with the elimination of the SSM exemption, there would be no need
to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and
malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA proposed for 40 CFR 63.2986(g) did not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). These revisions are being finalized as
proposed, with the exception of minor grammatical corrections and
clarifications.
    Consistent with our proposal, we are also revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' As
explained at proposal, 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
are either not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or
are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.2986.
2. SSM Plan
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.''
Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and
specify recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
plan. As noted at proposal, the EPA is removing the SSM exemption.
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. We believe that the applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements
are no longer necessary.
3. Compliance with Standards
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' As
explained at proposal, the current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)
exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As
discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions
contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some
CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra
Club, the EPA is revising standards in this rule to apply at all times.
This change means that sources would no longer be exempt from
nonopacity standards during periods of SSM.
4. 40 CFR 63.2992 Performance Testing
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table

(Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' As explained at
proposal, 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements
and, in order to reflect the removal of the SSM exemption, the EPA
proposed adding performance testing requirements at 40 CFR 63.2992(e).
The revised regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) that restates the SSM exemption and language that precluded
startup and shutdown periods from being considered ``representative''
for purposes of performance testing and the revised performance testing
provisions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. Similar to 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), the revisions to 40 CFR 63.2992(e) specify that performance
tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during
malfunctions; as noted at proposal, conditions during malfunctions are
often not representative of normal operating conditions. We also
proposed adding language that would require the owner or operator to
record both the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during performance testing and an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. We explained
that 40 CFR 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available
to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine
the condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator
upon request, but does not specifically require the information to be
recorded. We further explained that the regulatory text the EPA is
adding to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit
the requirement to record the information. These revisions are being
finalized as proposed, with the exception of minor grammatical
corrections and clarifications.
5. Monitoring
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' As explained at proposal, cross-references to the general duty
and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in
light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' At
proposal, we had explained that the final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3)
refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement that is no
longer applicable. The EPA also proposed adding text in 40 CFR
63.2994(a)(2) that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the
final sentence would be replaced with the following sentence: ``You
should include the program of corrective action in the plan required
under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).''
6. 40 CFR 63.2998 Recordkeeping
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' As
explained at proposal, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These
recordkeeping provisions are no longer necessary with the removal of
the SSM exemption, and, instead, the EPA is extending the requirements
for recordkeeping and reporting under normal operations to startup and
shutdown. As also previously explained in response to comments, we have
revised the definition of shutdown in order to account for the
residence time of the binder-infused fiberglass mat in the oven to help
sources establish periods of shutdown and to determine when HAP
emissions from ovens would cease. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods is now
limited to records used to establish the maximum residence time that
any binder-infused fiberglass mat would remain in the drying and curing
oven and to determine the time of shutdown. As discussed in section
III.C of this preamble, shutdown ends when the maximum residence time
has elapsed after binder infused fiberglass mat is no longer entering
the oven. The maximum residence time must be determined for each
production line. Typically, residence times are very short for wet-
formed fiberglass mat lines, on the order of less than 10 seconds to
less than 1 minute. Therefore, we are also requiring facilities to
maintain records showing how the maximum residence time was derived for
each line.
    Consistent with our proposal, we are also revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' At
proposal, we explained that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction and we proposed adding
the same requirements to 40 CFR 63.2998(g). We noted, however, that the
proposed regulatory text differs from the General Provisions given that
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) requires the creation and retention of a record
of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air
pollution control, and monitoring equipment. Instead, we proposed
recordkeeping requirements for any failure to meet an applicable
standard and also proposed requiring that the source record the date,
time, and duration of the failure rather than an ``occurrence.'' The
EPA also proposed adding to 40 CFR 63.2998(g) a requirement that
sources keep records that include a list of the affected source or
equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. We also
provided examples of such methods, which included product-loss
calculations, mass-balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA
further proposed requiring sources to keep records of information
related to any failure to meet applicable standards in order to ensure
that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the
severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that
documents how the source met the general duty requirement to minimize
emissions when the source failed to meet an applicable standard.
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' As
explained at proposal, when applicable, this provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. This requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. We further
explained that the requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions would now be applicable by reference to 40 CFR
63.2988(g).
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart

HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes'' in column
3 to a ``no.'' As explained at proposal, when applicable, this
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. As further
explained, the requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans
will no longer be required.
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' As
explained at proposal, with the elimination of the SSM exemption, 40
CFR 63.10(c)(15), which allows an owner or operator to either use the
affected source's SSM plan or keep records to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), and the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12), is now superfluous.
Consistent with our proposal, the EPA is eliminating this requirement
because SSM plans are no longer required.
7. 40 CFR 63.3000 Reporting
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' As
explained at proposal, 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA proposed adding
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3000(c). We explained that the
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report.
Subject to the correction described below, we are promulgating language
requiring sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
to report the relevant information concerning such events in a
compliance report. Compliance reporting on a quarterly basis is
currently required under the existing NESHAP. We are changing this
reporting period from a quarterly (four times a year) to a semiannual
(twice a year) basis, as discussed further below. We are also
correcting an error that occurred at publication of the proposed rule
where the published rule text inadvertantly included the same proposed
revisions for both 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5) and (6), and did not read as
explained in the proposal (83 FR 15000). These provisions specify the
content requirements for semiannual compliance reports before and after
the compliance date for this final rule. We did not receive any
comments on the proposed language for these provisions. We are
correcting 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5) by including the correct language,
which specifies that the content requirements of semiannual compliance
reports prior to the compliance date for this final rule would include
the existing rule requirements. We are also correcting 40 CFR
63.3000(c)(6) to indicate that after the compliance date for this rule,
the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause
of such events (including whether the cause is unknown, if applicable),
a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit,
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. As
previously explained, examples of such methods include product-loss
calculations, mass-balance calculations, direct measurements, or
engineering judgment based on known process parameters. It also
includes calculations for maximum residence time to reflect revisions
being made in the final rule in response to comments on the proposed
definition of shutdown. The EPA is promulgating this requirement to
ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to
allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an
applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty requirement to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
    As also proposed, we will no longer require owners or operators to
determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent
with an SSM plan, because, as previously discussed, such plans are no
longer required. The final amendments, therefore, specify in 40 CFR
63.3000(d) that the SSM reports (required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)) are no
longer required after the compliance dates for this rule. Malfunction
events will be reported in otherwise required reports having similar
format and submittal requirements, so these reporting specifications
are unnecessary and are being removed.
8. Definitions
    We are promulgating definitions of ``Startup,'' ``Shutdown,'' and
``Maximum residence time'' in 40 CFR 63.3004. The current rule relies
on the 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, definitions of startup and shutdown,
which are based on the setting in operation, and cessation of
operation, of the affected source (i.e., drying and curing oven). As
previously explained in the proposal (83 FR 15001) and in this section,
the formaldehyde standards could only be exceeded during periods that
fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the oven. As also previously
explained, because the EPA is requiring standards in this rule to apply
at all times, we are promulgating definitions of startup and shutdown
based on these periods to clarify that it is the commencing of
operation and cessation of operation of the drying and curing of
binder-infused fiberglass mat, plus the maximum residence time of that
mat in the oven, that defines shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH. We are finalizing a defintion indicating that shutdown
occurs when binder-infused fiberglass mat ceases to enter the oven, in
addition to the maximum residence time that fiberglass mat remains in
the oven, as determined for each production line. According to comments
we received at proposal, once the maximum residence time has elapsed,
the mat is cured and dried, and is not emitting any organic HAP; there
are no emissions at this point. We have also added a definition for
``maximum residence time'' and a formula for how the residence time
must be determined for each production line (i.e., each drying and
curing oven). We have described these changes in section III.C of this
preamble, and made minor clarifications to definitions of both startup
and shutdown in response to comments on our proposal, as described in
section IV.C of this preamble.
    For the reasons described in the preamble to the proposed rule, we
are also finalizing the proposed definition of ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR
63.3004 to remove language that differentiates between normal
operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events. We received
no comments on the proposed changes. The final rule also corrects a
publication error in the proposed rule. The proposed rule, as
published, incorrectly included two different definitions of
``Deviation.'' The final rule provides definitions of ``Deviation''
both prior to and after the compliance dates for this final rule.
Specifically, prior to the compliance dates for this rule, deviation
means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart,
or an owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any
requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including, but
not limited to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice
standard; (2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in the subpart and that is

included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or (3) fails to meet any emission limit, or
operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by the subpart.
    After the compliance dates for this rule, deviation means any
instance in which an affected source subject to the subpart, or an
owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement
or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited
to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard or
(2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in the subpart and that is included in the
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a
permit.

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

    The EPA is promulgating revisions to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for this NESHAP in the following three ways: (1)
Performance test results would be submitted electronically; (2)
compliance reports would be submitted semiannually when deviations from
applicable standards occur; and (3) parametric monitoring would no
longer be required during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used.
These provisions are being finalized as proposed, with minor
corrections and clarifications.
    Additionally, we proposed to reduce parametric monitoring and
recording for facilities using non-HAP binders and solicited comment on
exempting performance testing for such facilities. Consistent with our
proposal, we are adopting the parametric monitoring exemption for
facilities using non-HAP binders, as discussed in section III.D.2 of
this preamble). Based on a review of comments received, we are also
finalizing an exemption from performance testing requirements for
drying and curing ovens that are subject to a federally enforceable
permit requiring the use of only non-HAP binders, which is discussed in
section III.D.3 of this preamble. We are also finalizing several
clarifying revisions to the rule, such as requirements for submittal of
performance test data, which is discussed in section III.F of this
preamble. The requirements for submittal of semiannual compliance
reports, parametric monitoring requirements for facilities using non-
HAP binders, exemption of performance testing requirements for
facilities that are limited to the use of only non-HAP binders, and
technical and editorial clarifications are discussed below in this
section.
1. Frequency of Compliance Reports
    The EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.3000(c) to require that compliance
reports be submitted on a semiannual basis in all instances, with minor
changes from proposal. Reporting on a semiannual basis will adequately
provide a check on the operation and maintenance of process, control,
and monitoring equipment and identify any problems with complying with
rule requirements. The final rule specifies when facilities must begin
transitioning from quarterly to semiannual reporting for deviations.
2. Parametric Monitoring and Recording During Use of Binder Containing
No HAP
    The EPA is promulgating the provision that during periods when the
binder formulation being used to produce mat does not contain any HAP
(i.e., formaldehyde or any other HAP listed under section 112(b) of the
CAA), owners and operators will not be required to monitor or record
any of the parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH, including control device parameters. For each of these periods,
we are requiring that owners and operators record the dates and times
that production of mat using a non-HAP binder began and ended. To
clearly identify these periods when the binder formulation being used
to produce mat does not contain any HAP, we are promulgating revisions
to 40 CFR 63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 and Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, and also promulgating a definition of ``Non-HAP binder''
in 40 CFR 63.3004. As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, we
have revised the definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' from proposal to
clarify that non-HAP binder must meet the Office of Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard's criteria for
disclosing composition or ingredients in Section 3 of the safety data
sheet (SDS), except when the manufacturer has withheld identifying
information of the chemical. The affected source may not rely on a SDS
for a non-HAP binder where the manufacturer withholds the specific
chemical identity, including the chemical name, other specific
identification of a hazardous chemical, or the exact percentage
(concentration) of the substance in a mixture from Section 3 of the
SDS. In addition, the affected source may not withhold this information
when making the case that a binder used is a non-HAP binder. See
section IV.D of this preamble for additional information.
3. Exemption of Performance Testing for Facilities Subject to Federally
Enforceable Permit Requirements
    At proposal, the EPA solicited comment on the exemption from
performance testing requirements for drying and curing ovens that are
subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the use of only
non-HAP binders (83 FR 15005). The EPA received supportive comments for
this exemption. Thus, we are promulgating revisions to 40 CFR 63.2991
to provide that drying and curing ovens using exclusively non-HAP
binders and that are subject to a federally enforceable permit limit
for such non-HAP binders are not required to conduct periodic
performance tests. This revision will reduce burden for owners and
operators that have switched to using only non-HAP binders without any
increase in HAP emissions. Owners and operators of drying and curing
ovens that do not have a federally-enforceable permit limit and that
are currently permitted to use HAP-containing binders will still be
required to conduct periodic performance testing, even if they are not
currently using binders that contain HAP.
4. Technical and Editorial Changes
    We are finalizing several clarifying revisions to the final rule as
described in Table 2 of this preamble.

     Table 2--Miscellaneous Changes to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Section of subpart HHHH               Description of change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2984............................   Amend paragraph
                                             (a)(4) to clarify
                                             compliance with a different
                                             operating limit means the
                                             operating limit specified
                                             in paragraph (a)(1).
                                             Amend paragraph (e)
                                             to allow use of a more
                                             recent edition of the
                                             currently referenced
                                             ``Industrial Ventilation: A
                                             Manual of Recommended
                                             Practice,'' American
                                             Conference of Governmental
                                             Industrial Hygienists,
                                             i.e., the appropriate
                                             chapters of ``Industrial
                                             Ventilation: A Manual of
                                             Recommended Practice for
                                             Design'' (27th edition), or
                                             an alternate as approved by
                                             the Administrator.
                                             Revise text
                                             regarding IBR in paragraph
                                             (e) by replacing the
                                             reference to 40 CFR 63.3003
                                             with, instead, 40 CFR
                                             63.14.
40 CFR 63.2985............................   Amend paragraphs
                                             (a) and (b) and add new
                                             paragraph (d) to clarify
                                             the compliance dates for
                                             provisions related to these
                                             amendments.
40 CFR 63.2993............................   Correct paragraphs
                                             (a) and (b) to update a
                                             reference.
                                             Re-designate
                                             paragraph (c) as paragraph
                                             (e) and amend the newly
                                             designated paragraph to
                                             clarify that EPA Method 320
                                             (40 CFR part 63, appendix
                                             A) is an acceptable method
                                             for measuring the
                                             concentration of
                                             formaldehyde.
                                             Add new paragraph
                                             (c) to clarify that EPA
                                             Methods 3 and 3A (40 CFR
                                             part 60, appendix A-2) are
                                             acceptable methods for
                                             measuring oxygen and carbon
                                             dioxide concentrations
                                             needed to correct
                                             formaldehyde concentration
                                             measurements to a standard
                                             basis.
                                             Add new paragraph
                                             (d) to clarify that EPA
                                             Method 4 (40 CFR part 60,
                                             appendix A-3) is an
                                             acceptable method for
                                             measuring the moisture
                                             content of the stack gas.
40 CFR 63.2999............................   Amend paragraph (b)
                                             to update the list of
                                             example electronic medium
                                             on which records may be
                                             kept.
                                             Add paragraph (c)
                                             to clarify that any records
                                             that are submitted
                                             electronically via the
                                             EPA's Compliance and
                                             Emissions Data Reporting
                                             Interface (CEDRI) may be
                                             maintained in electronic
                                             format.
40 CFR 63.3003............................   Remove text and
                                             reserve the section
                                             consistent with revisions
                                             to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on February 28, 2019.
    The compliance date for existing wet-formed fiberglass mat drying
and curing ovens and drying and curing ovens constructed or
reconstructed after May 26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 is no later
than 180 days after February 28, 2019. As we stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule, we are allowing 180 days for owners and operators of
such affected sources to comply with the rule, giving them time to read
and understand the amended rule requirements; to install necessary
hardware and software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic
reporting; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet
the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the
rule, and make any necessary adjustments; to adjust parameter
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions for periods
of non-HAP binder use; and to update their operation, maintenance, and
monitoring (OMM) plan to reflect the revised requirements. The
compliance date for wet-formed fiberglass mat curing ovens constructed
or reconstructed after April 6, 2018 is at startup or February 28,
2019, whichever is later.

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

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for owners and
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities to submit
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. The final rule
requires that performance test reports be submitted using the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). We are finalizing these requirements
as proposed, with minor clarifications for the written notification of
delayed reporting, as discussed in section IV.E of this preamble.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?

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

A. Residual Risk Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a risk review and
presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the April
6, 2018, proposed rule for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category (83 FR 14984). The results of the risk assessment are
presented briefly in Table 3 of this preamble and in more detail in the
residual risk document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the
November 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which is in the
docket for this action.

                                           Table 3--Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the April 2018 Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual      Maximum chronic non-       Maximum screening acute non-cancer HQ \4\
                                                   cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence        cancer TOSHI \3\    -------------------------------------------------
                                                     million) \2\          cancer >= 1-in-1        (cases per year)    ------------------------
                                               ------------------------         million        ------------------------
           Number of facilities \1\                                    ------------------------                          Based on    Based on
                                                 Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on     actual     allowable           Based on actual emissions level
                                                  actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable   emissions   emissions
                                                 emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions     level       level
                                                 level \2\     level     level \2\     level     level \2\     level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.............................................         0.8           1           0          60      0.0003      0.0009       0.006       0.009  HQREL = 0.6 (formaldehyde).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Maximum target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) value. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category is the respiratory target
  organ.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ) values. HQ values shown use the lowest
  available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the reference exposure level (REL). When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response
  value.

    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based
on actual emissions, show the cancer maximum individual risk (MIR)
posed by the seven facilities is less than 1-in-1 million, with
formaldehyde as the major contributor to the risk. The total estimated
cancer incidence from this source category is 0.0003 excess cancer
cases per year, or one excess case every 3,000 years. There were no
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the seven
facilities in this source category. The maximum chronic noncancer
hazard index (HI) value for the source category could be up to 0.006
(respiratory) driven by emissions of formaldehyde. No one is exposed to
TOSHI levels above 1.
    We also evaluated the cancer risk at the maximum emissions allowed
by the MACT standard, or ``MACT-allowable emissions.'' Risk results
from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-allowable emissions
indicate that the cancer MIR could be as high as 1-in-1 million with
formaldehyde emissions driving the risks, and that the maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value could be as high as 0.009 at the MACT-allowable
emissions level with formaldehyde emissions driving the TOSHI. The
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category considering
allowable emissions is expected to be about 0.0009 excess cancer cases
per year or one excess case every 1,000 years. Based on MACT-allowable
emission rates, there were no cancer risks above 1-in-1 million.
    Table 3 of this preamble indicates that for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source category, the maximum hazard quotient
(HQ) is 0.6, driven by formaldehyde. We conducted a screening analysis
of the worst-case acute HQ for every HAP that has an acute dose-
response value (formaldehyde and methanol). Based on actual emissions,
the highest screening acute HQ value was 0.6 (based on the acute
reference exposure level (REL) for formaldehyde). The results showed
that no HQ values exceeded 1. Because none of the screening HQ were
greater than 1, further refinement of the estimates was not warranted.
    An assessment of risk from facility-wide emissions was performed to
provide context for the source category risks. The results of the
facility-wide (both MACT and non-MACT sources, i.e., sources at the
facility that are not included in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass source
category) assessment indicate that four of the seven facilities
included in the analysis have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than
1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 6-in-1 million,
mainly driven by formaldehyde emissions from non-MACT sources. The
total estimated cancer incidence from the seven facilities is 0.001
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 1,000 years.
Approximately 13,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks above
1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT
sources of the seven facilities in this source category. The maximum
facility-wide TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be less
than 1 (at a respiratory HI of 0.5), mainly driven by emissions of
acrylic acid and formaldehyde from sources at the facility that were
not included in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Production source category
(non-MACT sources).
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and also at populations living within 50 km of the facilities, and we
found that no one is exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million, or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report titled, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production, which is available in the docket for this action.
    We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source
category are acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and whether more
stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental
effect, by taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors. In determining whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, we examined the same risk
factors that we investigated for our acceptability determination and
also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other
relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce
risk associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed
that the 2002 Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP requirements
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Based on
the results of our environmental risk screening assessment, we also
proposed that more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an
adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category?
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed.

3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed risk
review and our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA
section 112(f)(2). Comments that were not supportive of the risk review
were considered at length. After review of these comments, we
determined that no changes needed to be made to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. The comments and our specific responses can be
found in the document titled ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses
for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review,''
which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category are acceptable,
and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our risk review as
proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for control of
formaldehyde emissions from drying and curing ovens at wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities. No cost-effective developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies were identified in our
technology review to warrant revisions to the standards. More
information concerning our technology review is in the memorandum
titled, Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production, which is in the docket for this action, and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 14984).
2. How did the technology review change for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category?
    The technology review has not changed since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    We received comments in support of the proposed determination from
the technology review that no revisions were warranted under CAA
section 112(d)(6). We also received one comment that asserted that cost
effectiveness should not be a consideration when examining standards
under CAA section 112(d)(6). We evaluated the comments and determined
that no changes regarding our determination were needed. These comments
and our specific responses can be found in the comment summary and
response document titled ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review,''
which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were
identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the
standards. More information concerning our technology review, and how
we evaluate cost effectiveness, can be found in the memorandum titled
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production, which is in the docket for this action, and in the preamble
to the proposed rule (83 FR 14984). Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we are finalizing our technology review as proposed.

C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
    We proposed removing and revising provisions related to SSM that
are not consistent with the requirement that standards apply at all
times. More information concerning our proposal on SSM can be found in
the proposed rule (83 FR 14984).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category?
    Since proposal, the SSM provisions have not changed, with the
following exceptions. We have corrected a publication error in the
proposed regulatory text for 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(5), as discussed in
section III.C.7 of this preamble. We have also clarified the proposed
definitions for ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' in the final rule to
address a comment received that requested use of consistent terminology
to refer to the material being processed, and for periods of shutdown,
by associating it with the maximum residence time required for the
curing and drying of mat in an oven and specifying the formula for
calculation of maximum residence time. We have revised the definitions
of ``Shutdown'' and ``Startup'' to read as set out in the regulatory
text at the end of this document.
    We have also added a definition for ``maximum residence time,''
which reflects the longest duration that binder-infused fiberglass mat
would remain in the drying and curing oven and is determined based on
the length of the drying and curing oven and the slowest line speed for
the normal operation of an oven. The definition specifies a formula for
the calculation of the maximum residence time as shown in the
regulatory text at the end of this document.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
    Comment: Although we did not propose standards for periods of
malfunction, one commenter initially proposed that the Agency should
promulgate work practice standards for malfunction events to address
HAP emissions from binder-infused fiberglass mat that would remain in
the oven during such events. In follow-up discussions of the potential
implementation of the requested work practice standard with the EPA,
the commenter requested that the EPA instead consider modifying the
definition of ``shutdown.'' \2\ The commenter asserted that the
proposed definition of ``shutdown'' could be construed such that a
shutdown period may continue for a period long after

binder-infused fiberglass mat has dried and emissions of organic HAP
have ceased. According to the commenter, this would result in the
potential for ``indefinite deviations.'' As an example, the commenter
provided that a power failure could result in the prevention of mat
leaving the oven even after the mat was cured and dried. The commenter
further explained that wet-formed fiberglass mat lines operate at high
speeds with relatively short residence times in the drying and curing
oven (ranging from less than 10 seconds to less than 1 minute), during
which the mat is completely dried and cured. Air pollution control
devices are operated during shutdown, and all emissions from the curing
and drying ovens are routed to these devices. The commenter requested
that the EPA amend the final definition of ``shutdown'' to clarify that
shutdown ends after mat ceases to enter the oven and following the
elapse of the residence time. The requested amendments would account
for the time period until the mat is completely cured and emissions
from the binder-infused fiberglass mat are no longer occurring. The
commenter also recommended that the EPA consider a definition for
``maximum residence time'' to clarify how facilities could calculate
the maximum residence time for each drying and curing oven. The
commenter also requested that the EPA revise the proposed definitions
of ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' to use consistent terminology to refer
to the material being processed. The commenter specifically requested
that the EPA's proposed definition of ``shutdown'' be revised to
replace the phrase ``any resin infused binder'' at the end of the
definition with ``any binder-infused fiberglass mat.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See letter from Reed B. Hitchcock, Asphalt Roofers
Manufacturing Association to Susan Fairchild (EPA), ``Re: Risk and
Technology Review, Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHH; Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309; Proposed
Modification to Definition of Shutdown,'' September 21, 2018, in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We are finalizing the commenter's suggestions for
clarification of the definitions of ``startup'' and ``shutdown,'' and
the requested definition for ``maximum residence time.'' The EPA also
agrees with commenters that the initially requested work practice
standards are not appropriate for wet-formed fiberglass mat production
operations, and consistent with proposal, is not finalizing any
standards for malfunctions. We concur with the commenter's assessment
that the binder-infused fiberglass mat entering the oven is cured over
a relatively quick period (that may range from less than 10 seconds to
less than 1 minute) and that this period of time (the ``residence
time'') should be taken into account when determining the cessation of
the operation period; for shutdown to complete, the binder infused
fiberglass mat must enter and remain in the oven for the duration of
the maximum residence time. When the maximum residence time is
completed, no further emissions of HAP occur as a result of the wet-
formed fiberglass mat manufacturing process. We are finalizing these
suggested changes accordingly. We are finalizing provisions that the
maximum residence time should be established as the longest time period
(in seconds), during normal operation, that a particular point on the
fiberglass mat remains in the oven, as determined by the length of the
drying and curing oven (in feet), and the slowest line speed during
normal operation (in feet per second), excluding periods of ramping up
to speed during startup. This maximum residence time may then be used
to determine the time of shutdown. See sections III.C and IV.C.2 of
this preamble for additional information on the final definitions for
``startup,'' ``shutdown,'' and ``maximum residence time'' and
determining the maximum residence time. We have also revised 40 CFR
63.2998 to include a requirement that facilities must maintain records
that show how the maximum residence time was derived for each
production line.
    Additional comments on the SSM provisions and our specific
responses to those comments can be found in the document titled Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket
for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule
(83 FR 14984) and in section III.C of this preamble, we determined that
these amendments remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are
not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all
times. Therefore, we are finalizing the amendments to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM, as proposed, with the exception of
clarifications to the definitions to ``startup'' and ``shutdown,'' and
the addition of a final definition for ``maximum residence time,'' as
discussed in this section.

D. Other Revisions To Monitoring, Performance Testing, and Reporting
Requirements for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category

1. What did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
    We proposed several revisions to the rule's monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, including revisions to the
frequency of submittal of compliance reports, revisions to remove the
requirement for parametric monitoring for drying and curing ovens where
only a non-HAP binder is used, and technical and editorial revisions.
    We proposed to revise the frequency of submittal of compliance
reports when deviations from applicable standards occur. Currently, 40
CFR 63.3000(c) requires owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass
mat production facilities to submit compliance reports on a semiannual
basis unless there are deviations from emission limits or operating
limits. In those instances, the rule required that compliance reports
be submitted on a quarterly basis. We proposed to revise 40 CFR
63.3000(c) to require that compliance reports be submitted on a
semiannual basis in all instances.
    We proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 to
revise requirements for owners and operators to monitor and record the
parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, during
periods when a non-HAP binder is being used. We proposed that during
periods when the binder formulation being used to produce mat does not
contain any HAP (i.e., formaldehyde or any other HAP listed under
section 112(b) of the CAA), in lieu of monitoring or recording the
parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, owners
and operators would be required to record the dates and times that
production of mat using a non-HAP binder began and ended. We proposed
harmonizing revisions to Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, and a
definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' to be added to 40 CFR 63.3004 to
clearly identify periods when the binder formulation being used to
produce mat does not contain any HAP. We also solicited comments on
revising 40 CFR 63.2991 to exempt performance testing requirements for
drying and curing ovens that are subject to a federally enforceable
permit requiring the use of only non-HAP binders.
    We proposed several technical and editorial revisions to 40 CFR
63.2984, 63.2993, and 63.2999. We also removed

and reserved 40 CFR 63.3003. The proposed revisions included clarifying
references, updates to acceptable reference methods that we are
incorporating by reference, updates to clarify the format of records,
and revisions for consistency with updates to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
2. How did the revisions and corrections to monitoring, performance
testing, and reporting requirements change for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
    Consistent with our proposal, we are revising the frequency of
submittal of compliance reports when deviations from applicable
standards occur from quarterly to semiannually. We are, however,
promulgating these revisions with minor changes such as clarifying 40
CFR 63.3000(c)(1) to indicate the date when the transition to
semiannual reporting should begin. We are also correcting a
typographical error in the proposed introductory sentence of 40 CFR
63.3000(c)(6).
    We are revising 40 CFR 63.2984, 63.2996, 63.2998, 63.3004
(definition of ``Non-HAP binder''), and Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, to revise requirements for owners and operators to
monitor and record the parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used, with
minor revisions. We are revising Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH, to apply footnote ``4'' to line 1 (``Thermal oxidizer
temperature'') and to line 2 (``Other process or control device
parameters in your OMM plan''). Finally, we have revised the definition
of ``Non-HAP binder'' from proposal to clarify that the binder must
meet the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, at 29 CFR 1910.1200(b),
criteria for disclosing composition or ingredients in Section 3 of
SDSs, except when identifying information is withheld. In such cases,
an affected source may not rely on an SDS for a non-HAP binder where
the manufacturer has withheld the specific chemical identity, including
the chemical name, other specific identification of a hazardous
chemical, or the exact percentage (concentration) of the substance in a
mixture from Section 3 of the SDS. Additionally, an affected source may
not withhold this information when making the case that a binder used
is a non-HAP binder.
    Since proposal, the technical and editorial revisions to 40 CFR
63.2984, 63.2993, 63.2999, and 63.3003 have not changed. We are,
however, making minor revisions such as grammatical corrections or
clarifications. For example, we are finalizing minor grammatical edits
(such as converting passive voice to active voice) and clarifications
that do not change the substantive content of the existing text. These
changes are not based on comments on the proposed rule, but rather
include minor edits to 40 CFR 63.2987(a), 63.2989(a), 63.2991(a),
63.2992(e), 63.2994(a)(2), 63.2996(a), 63.2997(a) and (b), 63.2998(c)
and (g), 63.2999(c), and 63.3000(e) through (g). Based on comments to
the proposed rule, we have also identified and implemented several
additional technical and editorial revisions, as discussed in section
IV.D.3 of this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the proposed revisions to
monitoring, performance testing, and reporting requirements for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, and what are our
responses?
a. Frequency of Compliance Reporting
    Comment: One commenter supported reducing the reporting frequency
from quarterly to semiannually. This commenter requested that the EPA
clarify 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(1) to indicate when the transition to
semiannual reporting should begin. The commenter also noted that the
EPA should correct a typographical error in the introductory paragraph
of 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(6) from ``paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of
this section'' to ``paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (ix) of this
section.''
    Response: We have clarified 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(1) by adding text
stating that if you deviate from the emission limits in 40 CFR 63.2983
or the operating limits in 40 CFR 63.2984 in the quarter prior to
February 28, 2019, you must include this information in the report for
the first full semiannual reporting period following February 28, 2019.
We also acknowledge the commenter's suggested correction to the
introductory sentence of 40 CFR 63.3000(c)(6) and have revised this
text as recommended.
b. Requirements for Facilities Using Non-HAP Binders
    Comment: One commenter supported the proposed changes reducing
unnecessary regulatory burdens when non-HAP binders are in use. This
commenter supported the EPA's proposal to exempt drying and curing
ovens that are subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the
use of only non-HAP binders from performance testing requirements. The
commenter suggested that the EPA could limit the scope of 40 CFR
63.2981(a) to exclude such (non-HAP) ovens from applicability under
this section of the rule. The commenter also stated that the EPA should
revise Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to apply footnote ``d''
to line 1 (``Thermal oxidizer temperature'') and to line 2 (``Other
process or control device parameters in your OMM plan'') in order to
make effective the EPA's intent not to require monitoring or
recordkeeping for periods when binders containing no HAP were in use.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenter's support for the exemption
from performance testing requirements for drying and curing ovens that
are subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the use of only
non-HAP binders. We did not receive any comments objecting to this
change and are finalizing changes to the 40 CFR 63.2991 introductory
text to exclude drying and curing ovens using exclusively
non[hyphen]HAP binders. The EPA is not accepting the suggested text
changes to 40 CFR 63.2981(a) recommended by the commenter because
facilities that use exclusively non-HAP binders may still be subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, if they are collocated with a major
source. However, such facilities would not be required to conduct
performance testing and would only be subject to recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. We also acknowledge the commenter's suggested
revisions to Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, and we have made
these edits, including minor clarifications to footnote ``d'' (new
footnote ``4'') in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise the new
definition of the term ``non-HAP binder'' to refer to the SDS, the term
used in the current OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR
1910.1200(b). This same commenter further requested that the EPA tie
the definition of non-HAP binder to the OSHA Hazard Communication
Standard's criteria for disclosing composition or ingredients in
Section 3 of SDSs.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenter's suggested revisions and
have clarified the definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' as provided by the
commenter. We have further revised this definition to clarify that the
affected source may not rely on the SDS for a non-HAP binder where the
manufacturer has withheld the specific chemical identity, including the
chemical name, other specific identification of a hazardous chemical,
or the exact percentage (concentration) of the substance in a mixture
from

Section 3 of the SDS, or withheld this information, when making the
case that a binder used is a non-HAP binder. The definition of ``Non-
HAP binder'' has been revised as set out in the regulatory text at the
end of this document.
c. Miscellaneous Corrections or Clarifications Recommended by
Commenters
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise 40 CFR
63.2985(a) and (b) to specify when the compliance dates for the SSM
requirements, the electronic reporting requirements, and all other
requirements take effect.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has clarified 40
CFR 63.2985 of the final rule to specify when the compliance dates for
new provisions apply. Specific compliance dates for individual
provisions are included in 40 CFR 63.2986, 63.2998, 63.3000, 40 CFR
63.3004, and Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. In general, we
are providing for 180 days for existing sources to comply with the
revised rule requirements. We are also finalizing proposed changes to
40 CFR 63.2985(d) that require new or reconstructed drying and curing
ovens that commenced operation between the date of the proposal and the
date of the final rule to comply on the effective date of the final
rule or startup (whichever is later).
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA remove the definition
of ``binder application vacuum exhaust'' from 40 CFR 63.3004, as this
term is not used in the standard as proposed.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the definition for
``binder application vacuum exhaust'' is no longer relevant for the
subpart and has removed the definition from the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA revise Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to clarify that only 40 CFR 63.14(b)(2) and
(3) apply to subpart HHHH, rather than all of 40 CFR 63.14.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's recommended revision
to Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, and has revised the table
entry for ``Sec.  63.14'' accordingly.
    Additional comments on the revisions to the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reportng provisions and our specific responses to
those comments can be found in the comment summary and response
document titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review, which is
available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the revisions to
monitoring, performance testing, and reporting requirements?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions for this
subpart, and the proposed technical and editorial corrections. These
comments were generally supportive, and requested only minor
clarifications and corrections to the proposed text. We are finalizing
these amendments as proposed, with the exception of the minor changes
discussed in this section.
    Additionally, we solicited comments on revising 40 CFR 63.2991 to
exempt drying and curing ovens that are subject to a federally
enforceable permit requiring the use of only non-HAP binders from
performance testing requirements. We received only supportive comments
on this potential change. We are, therefore, promulgating changes to
the 40 CFR 63.2991 introductory text to exclude drying and curing ovens
using exclusively non[hyphen]HAP binders from meeting the requirements
of this section. Facilities that use a combination of HAP and non-HAP
binders would continue to be required to conduct performance tests as
currently required under the subpart.

E. Requirements for Submission of Performance Tests for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category?
    We proposed amendments that would require owners and operators of
wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens to submit electronic
copies of certain required performance test reports. More information
concerning these proposed revisions is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (83 FR 14984).
2. How did the requirements for submission of performance tests change
for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category?
    Since proposal, the requirement for owners and operators of wet-
formed fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens to submit electronic
copies of certain required performance test reports has not changed.
The EPA is requiring owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. The final
rule requires that performance test results be submitted using the ERT.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports; is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency; will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment; will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance; and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes; thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors; and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-
0309.
3. What key comments did we receive on submission of performance tests,
and what are our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed
requirement for owners and operators to submit electronic copies of
performance test reports. Generally, the comments that were not
supportive of the proposed requirements to submit performance tests
electronically expressed concern that the requirements could require
duplicative or burdensome reporting, or expressed concerns regarding
delayed reporting requirements for sources to take in cases of events
that may cause a delay in reporting. After review of these comments, we
determined that no changes are necessary. The comments and our specific
responses can be found in the document titled Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk
and Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this
action.
    A commenter requested that the EPA clarify the written notification
of delayed reporting requirement in the proposed amendment to 40 CFR
63.3000(f). In response to this request, the EPA has revised the
language in 40 CFR 63.3000(f) to state that an owner or operator must
provide information on

the date(s) and time(s) either CDX or CEDRI is unavailable when a user
attempts to gain access in the 5 business days prior to the submission
deadline.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for submission of
performance tests?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments
requiring owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and
curing ovens to submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports. For the reasons explained in the proposed
rule, we determined that these amendments increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. More
information concerning the proposed requirement for owners and
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and curing ovens to
submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports
is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 14984) and the document,
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Risk and Technology Review, which is available in the docket
for this action. Therefore, we are finalizing our approach for
submission of performance tests, as proposed.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that
would be subject to the final amendments would incur minimal net costs
to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, some
estimated to have costs and some estimated to have cost savings.
Nationwide annual net costs associated with the final requirements are
estimated to be $200 per year in each of the 3 years following
promulgation of amendments. This estimated total annual cost is
comprised of estimated annual costs of about $1,390, which are offset
by the estimated annual cost savings of about $1,190. The EPA believes
that the seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities which
are known to be subject to the NESHAP can meet the final requirements
without incurring additional capital or operational costs. Therefore,
the only costs associated with the final amendments are related to
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs. For further information on the
requirements being finalized, see sections III and IV of this preamble.
For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with
the final requirements, see the memorandum titled Cost Impacts of Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review (Final
Rule), and the document, Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production (Final Rule), which are both available in the
docket for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

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

E. What are the benefits?

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

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, to examine the
potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated
with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is
an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 km and within 50 km of the facilities. In
the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source
category across different demographic groups within the populations
living near facilities. The results of this analysis indicated that
this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
the preamble to the proposed rule and the technical report titled Risk
and Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which is available in
the docket for this action.

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

    This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections
IV.A and B of this preamble and further documented in the risk report
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category in Support of the November 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this
action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be

found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1964.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, in the form
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; requiring
electronic submittal of performance test reports; reducing the
frequency of compliance reports to a semiannual basis when there are
deviations from applicable standards; and reducing the parameter
monitoring and recording, and performance testing requirements during
use of binder containing no HAP. We also included a review of the
amended rule by affected facilities in the updated ICR for this final
rule. In addition, the number of facilities subject to the standards
changed. The number of respondents was reduced from 14 to 7 based on
consultation with industry representatives and state/local agencies.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that
produce wet-formed fiberglass mat subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH).
    Estimated number of respondents: Seven.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual
compliance reports.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to
be 1,470 hours (per year). Of these, 3 hours (per year) is the
incremental burden to comply with the final rule amendments. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$95,500 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and
maintenance costs. Of the total, $200 (per year) is the incremental
cost to comply with the amendments to the rule.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the document
titled Final Economic Impact Analysis for the Risk and Technology
Review: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
are used to determine the gas flow rate which is used with the
concentration of formaldehyde to calculate the mass emission rate.
While the EPA identified 11 voluntary consensus standards (VCS) as
being potentially applicable as alternatives to EPA Methods 1, 2, 3,
3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, the Agency is not using them. The use of
these VCS would be impractical because of their

lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and/or other
important technical and policy considerations.
    Methods 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, are used
to determine the formaldehyde concentrations before and after the
control device (e.g., thermal oxidizer). The EPA conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable VCS. However, the Agency identified no
such standards, and none were brought to its attention in comments.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to use Methods 316, 318, and 320 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Results of the search are documented in the memorandum titled,
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production,
which is available in the docket for this action. Additional
information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/emc/emc-promulgated-test-methods.
    The EPA is also promulgating revisions to 40 CFR 63.2984 to allow
use of a more recent edition of the currently referenced ``Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists, i.e., the appropriate chapters of
``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design''
(27th edition), and revising the text regarding the existing IBR
(chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
Practice'' (23rd Edition)) by updating the reference to 40 CFR 63.14.
These methods provide guidance on the capture and conveyance of
formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven to the thermal
oxidizer. Owners and operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities may continue to use the existing reference (23rd edition),
or the updated method (27th edition) may be obtained from American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), Customer
Service Department, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45240,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. In addition, owners and operators may
inspect a copy at U.S. EPA Library, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which is available in the docket for
this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 20, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd
Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5,
``Exhaust System Design Procedure.'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to subpart RRR, Table 3 to
subpart RRR, and appendix A to subpart RRR, and Sec.  63.2984(e).
    (3) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for
Design, 27th Edition, 2010. IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1503,
63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to subpart RRR, Table 3 to subpart RRR,
and appendix A to subpart RRR, and Sec.  63.2984(e).
* * * * *

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

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

Sec.  63.2984  What operating limits must I meet?

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

0
4. Section 63.2985 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and
(c) introductory text and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

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

    (a) Existing drying and curing ovens must be in compliance with
this subpart no later than April 11, 2005, except as otherwise
specified in this section and Sec. Sec.  63.2986, 63.2998, 63.3000, and
63.3004 and Table 2 to this subpart.
    (b) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May
26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 must be in compliance with this
subpart at startup or by April 11, 2002, whichever is later, except as
otherwise specified in this section and Sec. Sec.  63.2986, 63.2998,
63.3000, and 63.3004 and Table 2 to this subpart.
    (c) If your facility is an area source that increases its emissions
or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP,
the following apply:
* * * * *
    (d) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after
April 6, 2018 must be in compliance with this subpart at startup or by
February 28, 2019 whichever is later.

0
5. Section 63.2986 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2986  How do I comply with the standards?

* * * * *
    (g) You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Before August 28, 2019, existing drying and curing ovens and
drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 26, 2000
and before April 7, 2018 must be in compliance with the emission limits
in Sec.  63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec.  63.2984 at all
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
After August 27, 2019, affected sources must be in compliance with the
emission limits in Sec.  63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec.
63.2984 at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018, must comply with all requirements
of the subpart, no later than February 28, 2019 or upon startup,
whichever is later.
    (2) Before August 28, 2019, existing drying and curing ovens and
drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May 26, 2000
and before April 9, 2018 must always operate and maintain any affected
source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1). After
August 27, 2019, for such affected sources, and after February 28, 2019
for affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018, at all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts
to reduce emissions if you are in compliance with the emissions limits
required by this subpart. The Administrator will base the determination
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements on information available to the Administrator
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
    (3) Before August 28, 2019, for each existing source and for each
new or reconstructed source for which construction commenced after May
26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018, you must maintain your written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in
Sec.  63.6(e)(3). The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan must
address the startup, shutdown, and corrective actions taken for
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment. A startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required for such affected
sources after August 27, 2019. No startup, shutdown, or malfunction
plan is required for any affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after April 6, 2018.

0
6. Section 63.2987 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2987  What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring
(OMM) plan include?

    (a) You must prescribe the monitoring that will be performed to
ensure compliance with these emission limitations. Table 1 to this