per thousand tons of glass pulled (6 x 10-5 lb/ton). Glass-
melting furnaces emitting at rates less than 75 percent of the proposed
limit would be able to reduce their testing frequency from annually to
every 3 years. Glass-melting furnaces emitting at or above 75 percent
of the proposed limit would be required to test annually, as described
in the performance test requirements (see section 63.884) of the
proposed rule.
    (2) Consistent with our intent to propose PM standards resulting
from our technology review, under section 112(d)(6), we are revising
the PM limit for all glass-melting furnaces from 0.5 to 0.33 lb PM per
ton glass pulled. The limits proposed in the November 25, 2011, notice
(76 FR 72815) were calculated incorrectly and did not reflect the
technology review results as described in that notice. The revised
limits proposed in today's action are based on our technology review
and reflect our analysis of the level of control being achieved by the
majority of the industry using baghouses and electrostatic
precipitators.
    (3) We are proposing work practice standards for control of HF and
HCl emissions from furnaces, instead of the emission limits in the
November 25, 2011, proposal. During the comment period, we received
comment from industry that most of the test data revealed results that
were below the detection limits (BDL) of the method. Upon reexamination
of our analysis of the acid gas data, we found that over 80 percent of
the HF and HCl test data were BDL, and as such we now agree with the
commenter and believe that rather than a numerical emission limit, a
work practice standard is appropriate for this case. We are therefore
proposing a work practice standard for HF and HCl emissions from
furnaces. (See Memo to File ``Development of Background Information on
Proposed Area Source Emissions Limits'', March 15, 2013.)
    Under section 112(h) of the CAA, the EPA may adopt a work practice
standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only if it is ``not
feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce
an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant''. This
phrase is defined in the Act to apply to any situation ``in which the
Administrator determines that * * * the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' CAA section 112(h)(1) and
(2).
    The EPA regards situations where, as here, the majority of the
measurements are below the detection limit as being a situation where
measurement is not ``technologically practicable'' within the meaning
of section 112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA. (See 76 FR 25046 where EPA proposed
set work practice standards for dioxins and organic HAP for utility
boilers.) Unreliable measurements raise issues of practicability and of
feasibility and enforceability (see section 112(h)(1)). The application
of measurement methodology in this situation would also not be
``practicable due to * * * economic limitation'' within the meaning of
section 112(h)(2)(B) since it would just result in cost expended to
produce analytically suspect measurements.
    (4) In the November 25, 2011 proposal we proposed new MACT emission
limits for RS lines for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. In today's
proposal, we are revising the emission limits for RS lines based on
clarification of test data received from the industry during the
comment period. During the data collection phase, we required companies
to provide test data on bonded lines even if these lines had phased out
the use of formaldehyde and were not producing a product that was
subject to Subpart NNN. Many companies did not distinguish between the
bonded lines that still used formaldehyde and those that did not. We
mistakenly included some data for HAP-free lines with the data for
lines still using formaldehyde. Today's notice proposes to correct that
error and to propose revised emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol
and methanol from RS manufacturing lines summarized in Table 9 of this
preamble.

                          Table 9--Emission Limits for Rotary Spin Manufacturing Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Current limit
                             HAP                                 (1999 rule)     2011 Proposal    2013 Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Existing Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde.................................................              1.2          0.17                0.19
Phenol.......................................................  ...............          0.19                0.26
Methanol.....................................................  ...............          0.48                0.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              New or Reconstructed Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde.................................................              0.8          0.020              0.087
Phenol.......................................................  ...............          0.0011             0.063
Methanol.....................................................  ...............          0.00067             0.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) In the original NESHAP, FA lines were subcategorized by product
(heavy density wool fiberglass verses pipe product). In the November
25, 2011 proposal we included new MACT emission limits for FA lines for
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol that applied to both heavy density
wool fiberglass and pipe product. However, we did not clearly state
that we were eliminating the FA line subcategories that existed in the
original NESHAP. We are proposing to eliminate subcategories of FA
manufacturing lines because we no longer believe that a technical basis
exists to distinguish these subcategories. As part of rule development,
industry provided test data that they claimed was representative of FA
lines for both product types. The 2011 and 2012 ICR response data
indicate that only one company uses FA processes to produce several
different products on the same lines. This is the company that provided
the test data on which the limits for FA lines are based.
    (6) As with the amendments to subpart DDD discussed in section
VI(A)(5) of this preamble, we are proposing to make technical
corrections to the GP citations in the rule. These amendments would
serve to accurately identify the requirements of the GP that apply to
subpart NNN.
    (7) An industry commenter stated that for measuring the
concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol the use of the
proposed EPA Method 318 can result in non-quantifiable levels

that are inappropriate to determine the proposed emission limits. The
commenter requested the option to determine all organics by EPA Method
318 or, alternatively, to determine formaldehyde by EPA Method 316;
determine phenol by EPA Method 8270D; and determine methanol by EPA
Method 308. The EPA agrees that EPA Method 318 may result in non-
quantifiable levels that are inappropriate for compliance
determination. Therefore we are proposing to allow compliance testing
with EPA Method 318 for all organics or, alternatively, to determine
formaldehyde by EPA Method 316; determine phenol by EPA Method 8270D;
and determine methanol by EPA Method 308.
    (8) In the November 25, 2011 proposal, we proposed to require
Method 0061 to measure chromium compounds. An industry commenter stated
that most existing compliance tests require the use of EPA Method 29 to
measure chromium compounds, and asked us to allow Method 29 to also be
acceptable for measuring chromium compounds. We agree with the
commenter that Method 29 is an acceptable method for this purpose, and
we propose to also allow compliance testing with EPA Method 29 for
total chromium compounds.

C. Revisions to Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

    In the proposed rules for mineral wool and wool fiberglass to which
this supplemental proposal is added, the EPA proposed the removal of
the exemptions pertaining to periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, and proposed standards that apply at all times. This
supplemental proposal does not change those proposed standards.
    In our proposal to revise subparts DDD and NNN for major sources,
we proposed the elimination of the startup and shutdown exemption and
other related requirements, including eliminating the requirement to
develop and maintain a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
However, in the proposal notice, we neglected to revise section
63.1386(c), which contains planning, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements related to startup and shutdown. In this supplemental
proposal, we are correcting this oversight and replacing prior
requirements with recordkeeping and reporting appropriate to standards
applicable at all times.
    Consistent with our intent to revise the requirements related to
SSM, we proposed several revisions to Table 1 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table). The changes in the supplemental proposal here
correctly correspond to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the rule revisions as proposed in 76 FR 72770.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the revisions we are proposing
to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the
absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on
whether we have successfully done so.
    As we proposed, the Subpart DDD emissions limits apply at all
times. In the proposed RTR rule, we did not define the periods of
startup or shutdown. In light of the comments received on the proposed
rule, which raise questions as to when startup and shutdown begin and
end, we are proposing definitions of startup and shutdown. We are
proposing to define startup to be when the coke interspersed with
layers of rock and/or slag and other mineral products are ignited. We
are proposing startup as ending when molten mineral wool begins to flow
from the cupola. We are proposing to add a definition of shutdown to be
when the cupola has reached the end of the melting campaign and is
empty.
    As was the case with wool fiberglass furnaces, the uncontrolled
emissions from a mineral wool cupola are expected to be lower during
startup and shutdown periods than during other operating periods due to
lower temperatures, and in the case of shutdown less raw materials.
Therefore, if a source continues to route the exhaust to the air
emissions control equipment, and operate that equipment consistent with
the operating parameters established during the last successful
compliance test, the source would be expected to maintain compliance
with the emissions limits during startup and shutdown. Therefore, we
are proposing a compliance alternative allowing sources to demonstrate
compliance with the emissions limits during startup and shutdown by
keeping records establishing that its emissions were routed to the air
pollution control devices, and these control devices were operated at
the parameters established by the most recent performance test that
showed compliance with the emissions limit.
    For subpart NNN we are also retaining the requirements that the
emissions limits apply at all times, including startup and shutdown.
For the reasons previously discussed in III.D, we are adding a
compliance alternative for startup and shutdown of all furnaces that a
facility keep records demonstrating that emissions are routed to the
air pollution control devices, and all applicable control devices were
operated at the same parameters as they were operated during the most
recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.
    Electric cold-top furnaces are controlled differently than other
furnace types. In this case cold-top glass-melting furnaces could
demonstrate compliance by melting only cullet until a crust on the
batch cover has been established. Cullet has a lower emissions
potential than other raw materials typically used. Therefore, limiting
the raw material to only cullet during startup will result in lower
emissions. We are also adding a requirement that all other glass-
melting furnaces could demonstrate compliance during startup by
preheating the empty glass-melting furnace using only natural gas.
    As with the amendments to subpart DDD discussed in section VI(A)(5)
of this preamble, we are proposing to make technical corrections to the
GP citations in the rule. These amendments would serve to accurately
identify the requirements of the GP that apply to subpart NNN.
    Finally, we are also proposing affirmative defense language that
differs in some respects from the language we proposed in November of
2011. For example, we have used the term ``exceedance'' rather than the
term ``violation'' in several places. We have also eliminated the two-
day notification requirement and the directive that off-shift and
overtime labor be used to the extent practicable to make repairs and
have revised the reporting requirement deadlines. We are asking for
comments on the language we have proposed today that differs from the
language proposed in November 2011.

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to Mineral Wool Production
(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) Major
Source Rules

A. Subpart DDD--Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule

    Emissions of COS and formaldehyde from mineral wool production
facilities have declined over the last decade as a result of federal
rules, state rules and on the industry's own initiative. Today's
proposed amendments would maintain emissions of COS, formaldehyde,
phenol or methanol emissions at their current low levels.
    We do not anticipate any adverse water quality or solid waste
impacts from the proposed amendments to the 1999 MACT rule because the
proposed requirements would not change the

existing requirements that impact water quality or solid waste.
    The estimated cost impacts have been reduced from those in the
November 25, 2011, proposal. In the November 2011 RTR proposal, we
estimated the total annualized costs from the rule as $548,000. Those
cost estimates included $360,000 for low sulfur coke and other raw
materials and $243,000 for additional testing and monitoring. In that
proposal, annual testing was required for sources to comply with the
rule. In this supplemental proposal, we reevaluated those costs and the
compliance testing frequency, and the costs presented below in Table 10
wholly replace those estimated in the November 2011 proposed rule. As
explained in section VI.A. of this preamble, the EPA is establishing
subcategories for mineral wool based on (1) whether slag is included in
the raw materials melted in the cupola(s), and (2) whether the line has
a closed-top cupola or an open-top cupola. All existing lines with
closed-top cupolas are fitted with RTO which convert the high
concentrations of COS in the cupola exhaust gas to energy that is
returned to the cupola. This technology reduces the consumption of coke
up to 30 percent and, because of the cost of coke, this technology pays
for itself over a period of several years. Emissions of COS are below
0.03 lb COS per ton melt when an RTO is installed for energy recovery
and new source MACT for closed-top cupolas is based upon the use of
this technology. Open-top cupolas do not accommodate RTO. Today's
proposed rule establishes a limit of 4.3 lbs COS per ton melt for new
lines with open-top cupolas, and 6.8 lbs COS per ton melt for existing
lines. All lines currently in operation can meet this limit without new
control equipment or different input materials, and thus will not incur
additional costs.
    The total annualized costs for these proposed amendments are
estimated at $59,200 (2011 dollars) for additional testing and
monitoring. Note also that the cost impacts for today's proposed rule
are about 10 percent of those proposed in November 2011. This reduction
in cost is due to two factors. First, we have subcategorized cupolas
according to design and use of slag. Second, cost changes for testing
and monitoring are due to a reduced frequency of testing: from annual
required under the proposed rule to testing every 5 years under this
supplemental proposal. Other differences also affect the cost
comparison. These include one new source in the source category (Roxul
in Mississippi) and the change from cost estimates based upon 2010
dollars to 2011 dollars. Table 10 below provides a summary of the
estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with today's
proposed amendments to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP.

   Table 10--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Mineral Wool Production Proposed Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total HAP         Cost
                                                     Estimated       Estimated       emissions     effectiveness
               Proposed amendment                  capital cost     annual cost     reductions     in $ per ton
                                                       ($MM)           ($MM)         (tons per       total HAP
                                                                                year)         reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional testing and monitoring...............               0           0.059             N/A             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Subpart NNN--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule

    We evaluated the impacts to the affected sources based on all
available information. Two significant sources were the 2010 and 2011/
2012 emissions testing and subsequent conversations with NAIMA and
individuals operating industry facilities. According to the 2010 and
2012 emissions test data, there are three glass-melting furnaces at two
facilities that do not meet the proposed chromium compound emission
limit.
    Our assessment of impacts is based on the data from tested glass-
melting furnaces only, and may not be representative of untested glass-
melting furnaces. We anticipate that 10 of the 30 wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities currently operating in the United States are
currently major sources and would be affected by these proposed
amendments. We estimate that two of the 10 wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities that are major sources would install air
pollution controls.
    We expect that today's proposed RTR amendments would result in
reductions of 442 pounds of chromium compounds. Hexavalent chromium can
be as much as 93 percent of the total chromium compounds emitted from
wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces.
    We believe that all affected facilities will be able to comply with
the today's proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl without
additional controls, and that there will be no measurable reduction in
emissions of these gases. Also, we anticipate that there will be no
reductions in PM emissions due to these proposed PM standards because
all sources currently meet the revised PM limit.
    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices. We do not anticipate significant
secondary impacts from the proposed amendments to the Wool Fiberglass
MACT.
    The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the
ability of each facility to meet the proposed emissions limits for PM,
chromium compounds, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol. The memorandum,
Cost Impacts of the Proposed NESHAP RTR Amendments for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category, includes a complete
description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is
available in the docket.
    Under today's proposed amendments, eight of the 10 major source
wool fiberglass facilities will not to incur any capital costs to
comply with the proposed emissions limits. Five facilities would be
subject to new costs for compliance testing on gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces, which will total $80,000 annually for the entire industry. At
this time, there are two facilities with a total of three gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces that do not meet the proposed emissions limit
for chromium compounds. We anticipate that these facilities would
install a sodium hydroxide scrubber on each of three glass-melting
furnaces, for a total capital cost of $750,000. The total annualized
cost for the scrubbers, including operating and maintenance costs, is
estimated to be $300,000. There are a total of eight gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces located at five major source facilities. Annual
performance testing costs would be $10,000 per glass-melting furnace,
resulting in total glass-melting furnace testing costs of $80,000.
    The 10 major source facilities would incur total annualized costs
of $80,400

for additional compliance testing on their FA and RS manufacturing
lines and six of those facilities would incur a total cost of $750,000
for operation and maintenance of their existing thermal oxidizers due
to the proposed rule emission limits. The total annualized costs for
the proposed amendments are estimated at $1.21 million (2011 dollars).
    Table 11 below summarizes the costs and emission reductions
associated with the proposed amendments.

 Table 11--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Standards
                                              (NNN) in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Est.      Est. total
       Proposed amendment           capital     annualized  Total HAP emissions  Cost effectiveness     Number
                                   cost ($MM)   cost ($MM)       reductions                           facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Gas-Fired Glass-Melting Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of NaOH scrubber...     0.25 x 3      0.1 x 3  455 pounds per year  835 ($ per pound).            2
Additional testing and                      0     0.01 x 8  N/A................                                5
 monitoring for gas-fired glass-
 melting furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          RS and FA Manufacturing Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance of                0        0.750  123 tons per year..  6750 ($ per ton)..            6
 thermal oxidizer.
Additional testing and                      0        0.080  N/A................                               10
 monitoring for FA and RS lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
Costs and Emission Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP--Area Source, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
1042. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action
and the analysis is briefly summarized in section V.B of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2481.01.
    The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The requirements discussed below
pertain only to the proposed area source rule. The requirements for the
major source rule remain unchanged from the November 2011 proposal.
    The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the
control devices, and some notifications or reports beyond those
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
The information collection activities in this ICR include the
following: Performance tests, operating parameter monitoring,
preparation of a site-specific monitoring plan, monitoring and
inspection, one-time and periodic reports, and the maintenance of
records. Some information collection activities included in the NESHAP
may occur within the first 3 years, and are presented in this burden
estimate, but may not occur until 4 or 5 years following promulgation
of the proposed standards for some affected sources. To be conservative
in our estimate, the burden for these items is included in this ICR. An
initial notification is required to notify the Designated Administrator
of the applicability of this subpart, and to identify gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces subject to this subpart. A notification of performance
test must be submitted, and a site-specific test plan written for the
performance test, along with a monitoring plan. Following the initial
performance test, you must submit a notification of compliance status
that documents the performance test and the values for the operating
parameters. A periodic report submitted every six months documents the
values for the operating parameters and deviations. Owners or operators
of wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities are required to keep
records of certain parameters and information for a period of 5 years.
The annual testing, annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $32,808. This
includes 77 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $6,088 per
year, and total non-labor capital costs of $26,720 per year. This
estimate includes initial and annual performance tests, conducting and
documenting semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance
inspections, developing a monitoring plan, notifications and
recordkeeping. Monitoring and testing cost were also included in the
cost estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in
section V of this preamble. The total burden for the Federal government
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
standard) is estimated to be 16 hours per year, at a total labor cost
of $695 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    When malfunctions occur, sources must report them according to the
applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN. An
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission
limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it
can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied.
The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only
where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets
the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (e.g., sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance or careless operation) and where the source took necessary
actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must meet
certain reporting requirements. For example, the source must prepare a
written root cause analysis and submit a written report to the
Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and
requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense. The EPA
considered whether there might be any burden associated with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion
of the affirmative defense. Any such burdens are only incurred if there
has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the
affirmative defense. Therefore, the EPA estimates that there would be
no additional costs for sources that choose to take advantage of the
affirmative defense for malfunctions since it is already required for
compliance with the rule. However, there may be other malfunctions that
are not currently regulated under the part 61 NESHAP that might prompt
a source to take advantage of an affirmative defense.
    To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of
the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense
position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative
adjustments to the ICR that show what the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense
might entail. The EPA's estimate for the required reports and records,
including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141, and is based on the
time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview
plant employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that
has caused a violation of an emission limit. The estimate also includes
time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the
EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition
above), and only a subset of violations caused by malfunctions would
result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense.
    Thus, we expect the number of instances in which source operators
might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will
be extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than one such
occurrence will occur per year for all sources subject to subpart NN
over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather
information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate
as better information becomes available.
    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.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and
the OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for
where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after April 15, 2013, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 15, 2013.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. For this source category, which has the general
NAICS code 327993 (i.e., Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 750 employees
according to the SBA small business standards definitions.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities in the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source categories, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Five of the seven Mineral Wool Production parent companies
affected in this proposed rule are considered to be small entities per
the definition provided in this section. There are no small businesses
in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. We estimate that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
of those companies.
    While there are some costs imposed on affected small businesses as
a result of this rulemaking, the costs associated with today's action
are less than the costs associated with the limits proposed on November
25, 2011. Specifically, the cost to small entities in the Mineral Wool
Production source category due to the changes in COS, HF, and HCl are
lower as compared to the limits proposed on November 25, 2011.

None of the five small mineral wool parent companies are expected to
have an annualized compliance cost of greater than one percent of its
revenues. All other affected parent companies are not small businesses
according to the SBA small business size standard for the affected
NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, we have determined that the
impacts for this proposed rule do not constitute a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Although these proposed rules would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless
has tried to mitigate the impact that these rules would have on small
entities. The actions we are proposing to take to mitigate impacts on
small businesses include less frequent compliance testing for the
entire mineral wool industry and subcategorizing the Mineral Wool
Production Source Category in developing the proposed COS, HF and HCl
emissions limits than originally required in the November 25, 2011,
proposal. For more information, please refer to the economic impact and
small business analysis that is in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The total annualized cost of these rules is estimated to be no more
than $150,000 (2011$) in any one year. Thus, these rules are not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA, because they contain no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. These rules only
impact mineral wool and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities, and,
thus, do not impact small governments uniquely or significantly.

E. 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rules impose
requirements on owners and operators of specified major and area
sources, and not on state or local governments. There are no wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production
facilities owned or operated by state or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
action from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed
rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area and
major sources, and not tribal governments. There are no wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production facilities owned or
operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is based
solely on technology performance.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA estimates that the requirements
in this proposed action would cause most wool fiberglass manufacturers
to modify existing air pollution control devices (e.g., increase the
horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and operate new control
devices, resulting in a small increase in the megawatt-hours per year
of additional electricity being used.
    Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
this proposed action, the EPA does not expect any significant price
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should
not be affected by this proposed action at all since the action would
not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any
impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse
outcomes that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be
significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any
adverse energy effects associated with this proposed action, they would
be minimal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the agency
conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
    Under 40 CFR part 63 subpart NN, searches were conducted for EPA
Methods 5 and 29. The search did not identify any other VCS that were
potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
    We proposed VCS under the NTTAA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
(NNN) and for Mineral Wool Production (DDD) in November 2011.
Commenters asked to have the option to use other EPA methods to measure
their emissions for compliance purposes. These are not VCS and as such
are not subject to this requirement.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why such standards should be
used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs

federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    An analysis of demographic data shows that the average percentage
of minorities, percentages of the population below the poverty level,
and the percentages of the population 17 years old and younger, in
close proximity to the sources, are similar to the national averages,
with percentage differences of 3, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively, at the 3-
mile radius of concern. These differences in the absolute number of
percentage points from the national average indicate a 9.4-percent,
14.4-percent, and 6.6-percent over-representation of minority
populations, populations below the poverty level, and the percentages
of the population 17 years old and younger, respectively.
    In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities
near affected sources, the EPA used census data at the block group
level to identify demographics of the populations considered to be
living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to
current emissions from these sources. In this approach, the EPA
reviewed the distributions of different socio-demographic groups in the
locations of the expected emission reductions from this rule. The
review identified those census block groups with centroids within a
circular distance of a 0.5, 3, and 5 miles of affected sources, and
determined the demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g., race,
income, education, etc.) of these census block groups. The radius of
three miles (or approximately five kilometers) has been used in other
demographic analyses focused on areas around potential
sources.17 18 19 20 There was only one census block group
with its centroids within 0.5 miles of any source affected by the
proposed rule. The EPA's demographic analysis has shown that these
areas, in aggregate, have similar proportions of American Indians,
African-Americans, Hispanics, and ``Other and Multi-racial''
populations to the national average. The analysis also showed that
these areas, in aggregate, had similar proportions of families with
incomes below the poverty level as the national average, and similar
populations of children 17 years of age and younger.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government
Printing Office; 1995.
    \18\ Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research. Demography.
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \19\ Mennis J. Using Geographic Information Systems to Create
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for
Environmental Justice Analysis. Social Science Quarterly,
2002;83(1):281-297.
    \20\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
    \21\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in
Review of Environmental Justice Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride,
September 2010, a copy of which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA defines Environmental Justice to include meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote
meaningful involvement, the EPA has developed a communication and
outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to
this proposed rule, are aware of its content, and have an opportunity
to comment during the comment period. During the comment period, the
EPA will publicize the rulemaking via environmental justice
newsletters, Tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs and
the Internet, including the EPA Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway Web
site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). The EPA will also
conduct targeted outreach to environmental justice communities, as
appropriate. Outreach activities may include providing general
rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community)
for environmental justice community groups, and conducting conference
calls with interested communities. In addition, State and Federal
permitting requirements will provide State and local governments, and
members of affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on
the permit conditions associated with permitting the sources affected
by the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: March 15, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(10) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (10) Method 8270D (SW-846-8270D), Semivolatile Organic Compounds by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 4, February
2007, in EPA Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec.  63.1385, 63.11960, 63.11980, and table 10 to subpart HHHHHHH
of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NN to read as follows:
Subpart NN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources
Sec.
63.880 Applicability.
63.881 Definitions.
63.882 Emission standards.
63.883 Monitoring requirements.
63.884 Performance test requirements.
63.885 Test methods and procedures.
63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.887 Compliance dates.
63.888 Startups and shutdowns.
63.889-63.899 [Reserved]

Table 1. Subpart NN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40
CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN

Subpart NN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources

Sec.  63.880  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source or is
located at a facility that is an area source.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of
particulate matter (PM) and chromium compounds, as measured according
to the methods and procedures in this subpart, emitted from each new
and existing gas-fired glass-melting furnace located at a wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source.
    (c) The provisions of this part 63, subpart A that apply and those
that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 of this
subpart.
    (d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that are not subject to NNN
are subject to this subpart
    (e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces using electricity as a
supplemental energy source are subject to this subpart

Sec.  63.881  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec.  63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
    Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not
limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other
effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter (PM)
emissions.
    Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a
refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high
temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned
to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure
and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers,
exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical
boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and
appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming
processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not
considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top
electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in Part 63, subpart NNN are
not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
    Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by
a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of
wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time
period.
    Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the
production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where
molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may
include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set
and a cooling section where the mat is cooled.
    Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers
made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the
manufacturing line is located.
    Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility
manufacturing wool fiberglass.

Sec.  63.882  Emission standards.

    (a) Emission limits. (1) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. On and
after the date the initial performance test is completed or required to
be completed under Sec.  63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
    (i) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-
melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere in excess of:
    (A) 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton of glass
pulled; and
    (B) 0.00006 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per ton of glass pulled
(60 lb per million tons glass pulled).
    (b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Sec. Sec.  63.7 and
63.1384 is completed, you must operate all affected control equipment
and processes according to the following requirements.
    (1)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour of an
alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete corrective actions
in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent
with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64,
subpart D when the bag leak detection system alarm is sounded for more
than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
    (2)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any
3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance
test as specified in Sec.  63.884 and complete corrective actions in a
timely manner according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 subpart D when the
monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 5 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (iii) You must operate the ESP such that the monitored ESP
parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (3)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any
3-hour block average value for the monitored parameter(s) for a gas-
fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on controls, is outside
the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in
Sec.  63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner
according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 subpart D when the
monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established during the
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than five
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
    (iii) You must operate a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which
uses no add-on technology, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not
outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as
specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (4)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the
average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors, or
daily glass pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not so equipped,
exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the performance
test as specified in Sec.  63.884, by greater than 20 percent and

complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance and monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the
glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average glass
pull rate established during the performance test as specified in Sec.
63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period.
    (iii) You must operate each gas-fired glass-melting furnace such
that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent, the
average glass pull rate established during the performance test as
specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
    (5)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the
average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or pressure drop (for a venturi
scrubber) for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established
during the performance tests as specified in Sec.  63.884 for each wet
scrubbing control device and complete corrective actions in a timely
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
    (ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance
assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when any
scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than five
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
    (iii) You must operate each scrubber such that each monitored
parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the
performance test as specified in Sec.  63.884 for more than 10 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

Sec.  63.883  Monitoring requirements.

    You must meet all applicable monitoring requirements contained in
40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

Sec.  63.884  Performance test requirements.

    (a) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart you must
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.882. Compliance is demonstrated
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each
of the applicable emission limits in Sec.  63.882. You must conduct the
performance test according to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A and in this section.
    (b) You must meet all applicable performance test requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

Sec.  63.885  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) You must use the following methods to determine compliance with
the applicable emission limits:
    (1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the selection of the
sampling port location and number of sampling ports;
    (2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for O2
and CO2 for diluent measurements needed to correct the
concentration measurements to a standard basis;
    (4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for moisture content of
the stack gas;
    (5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of
PM. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of 2 hours and a
minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). The probe
and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 120 14 [deg]C (248 25 [deg]F);
    (6) Method 29 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration of
chromium compounds. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of 2
hours and a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm.
    (7) An alternative method, subject to approval by the
Administrator.
    (b) Each performance test shall consist of three runs. You must use
the average of the three runs in the applicable equation for
determining compliance.

Sec.  63.886  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Requirements. You must meet all applicable notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNN.
    (b) Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission Limit During
Malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim
for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused
by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed if you fail to meet the burden of proving all of the
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet
the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation or maintenance.
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred and
    (iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event
at issue. The analysis must also specify, using best monitoring methods
and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense you must submit a written report to the Administrator, with all
necessary supporting documentation, that meets the requirements set
forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. This affirmative defense
report shall be included in the

first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging
period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report
is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation,
the affirmative defense report may be included in the second
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the
initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.

Sec.  63.887  Compliance dates.

    (a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by no later than:
    (1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing plant or source
subject to the provisions in this subpart would be 1 year after
promulgation.
    (2) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
compliance date for new and reconstructed plants or sources is upon
startup of a new gas-fired glass-melting furnace or at promulgation of
the final rule.
    (3) The compliance date for the provisions related to malfunctions
and affirmative defense provisions of Sec.  63.886 and the electronic
reporting provisions of Sec.  63.886 is at promulgation of the final
rule.
    (b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing
source subject to this subpart may request from the Administrator an
extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one
additional year if such additional period is necessary for the
installation of controls. You must submit a request for an extension
according to the procedures in Sec.  63.6(i)(3) of this part.

Sec.  63.888  Startups and shutdowns.

    (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
    (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or
utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during
times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment, if
the shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable
to such items of equipment. This paragraph does not apply if you must
shut down the equipment to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous
startup or shutdown of the affected source or a portion thereof.
    (c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting
furnace has any raw materials added. Startup ends when molten glass
begins to flow from the glass-melting furnace.
    (d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting
furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down
process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the
contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the
glass-melting furnace.
    (e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate
compliance with the gas-fired glass-melting furnace emission limits in
Sec.  63.882 during periods of startups and shutdowns, demonstrate
compliance in accordance with this paragraph (e) of this section.
    (f) During periods of startup and shutdown, records establishing
that your air pollution control devices were operated at the parameters
established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance
with the standard may be used to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits.

Sec. Sec.  63.889-63.899  [Reserved]

  Table 1--Subpart NN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     General provisions  citation            Requirement         Applies to subpart NN         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  Applicability..........  Yes....................  .......................
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                in Sec.   63.881.
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................  .......................
63.4.................................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................  .......................
63.5.................................  Construction/            Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
63.5(a), (b), (c)....................  Existing, New,           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reconstructed Sources
                                        Requirements.
63.5(d)..............................  Application for          No.....................  [Reserved].
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.882 for
                                                                                general duty
                                                                                requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).......................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(e)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown, and   No.....................  .......................
                                        Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)...........................  Compliance with          No.....................  .......................
                                        Emission Standards.
63.6(g)..............................  Alternative Standard...  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(h)..............................  Compliance with Opacity/ No.....................  Subpart DDD--no COMS,
                                        VE Standards.                                     VE or opacity
                                                                                standards.
63.6(i)..............................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(j)..............................  Exemption from           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................  Sec.   63.884 has
                                        Requirements                                      specific requirements.
                                        Applicability
                                        Notification Quality
                                        Assurance/Test Plan
                                        Testing Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)...........................  Conduct of Tests.......  No.....................  .......................
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4).............  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.7(f), (g), (h)....................  Alternative Test Method  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Data Analysis Waiver
                                        of Tests.

63.8(a)-(b)..........................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability Conduct
                                        of Monitoring.
63.8(c)(1)(i)........................  CMS Operation/           No.....................  See Sec.   63.882(b)
                                        Maintenance.                                      for general duty
                                                                                requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii).......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)......................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(d)(3)...........................  Quality Control........  Yes, except for the      .......................
                                                                 last sentence.
63.8(e)-(g)..........................  CMS Performance          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Evaluation.
63.9(a)..............................  Notification             Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.9(b)..............................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Extension.
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification  Yes....................  .......................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/      No.....................  Opacity/VE tests not
                                        Opacity Test.                                     required.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-(3).......................  Notification of          .......................  .......................
                                        Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous       Yes....................  .......................
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability.
63.10(b)(1)..........................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i).......................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)......................  .......................  No.....................  See 63.886 for
                                                                                recordkeeping of
                                                                                occurrence and
                                                                                duration of
                                                                                malfunctions and
                                                                                recordkeeping of
                                                                                actions taken during
                                                                                malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)............  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)..........  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(b)(3)..........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)......................  Additional CMS           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(10)-(11)....................  .......................  No.....................  See 63.886 for
                                                                                recordkeeping of
                                                                                malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(15).........................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)......................  General Reporting        Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Performance Test
                                        Results Opacity or VE
                                        Observations.
63.10(d)(5)..........................  Progress Reports/        No.....................  See 63.886(c)(2) for
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and                            reporting of
                                        Malfunction Reports.                              malfunctions.
63.10(e)-(f).........................  Additional CMS Reports   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Excess Emission/CMS
                                        Performance Reports
                                        COMS Data Reports
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting Waiver.
63.11................................  Control Device           No.....................  Flares will not be used
                                        Requirements                                      to comply with the
                                        Applicability Flares.                             emissions limits.
63.12................................  State Authority and      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses..............  Yes....................  .......................
63.14................................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reference.
63.15................................  Information              Yes....................  .......................
                                        Availability/
                                        Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart DDD--[AMENDED]

0
4. Section 63.1178 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding
paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1178  For cupolas, what standards must I meet?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Limit emissions of carbonyl sulfide (COS) from each existing,
new, or reconstructed closed-top cupola to the following:
    (i) 3.4 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing closed-top
cupolas.
    (ii) 0.025 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or reconstructed
closed-top cupolas.

    (3) Limit emissions of COS from each existing, new, or
reconstructed open-top cupola to the following:
    (i) 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing open-top
cupolas.
    (ii) 4.3 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or reconstructed
open-top cupolas.
    (4) Limit emissions of hydrogen fluoride (HF) from each existing,
new, or reconstructed cupola to the following:
    (i) 0.16 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas using slag as
a raw material.
    (ii) 0.13 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas that do not
use slag as a raw material.
    (5) Limit emissions of hydrogen Chloride (HCl) from each existing,
new, or reconstructed cupola to the following:
    (i) 0.21 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas using slag
as a raw material.
    (ii) 0.43 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas that do not
use slag as a raw material.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1179  For combined collection/curing operations, what
standards must I meet?

    (a) You must control emissions from each existing and new combined
collection/curing operations by limiting emissions of formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol to the following:
    (1) For combined drum collection/curing operations:
    (i) 0.18 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
    (ii) 1.3 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
    (iii) 0.48 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
    (2) For combined horizontal collection/curing operations:
    (i) 0.054 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
    (ii) 0.15 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
    (iii) 0.022 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
    (3) For combined vertical collection/curing operations:
    (i) 2.7 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
    (ii) 0.74 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
    (iii) 1.0 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
    (b) You must meet the following operating limits for each combined
collection/curing operations subcategory:
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1180 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1180  When must I meet these standards?

* * * * *
    (d) 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. Determination of
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will
be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
    (e) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in Sec.  63.1197, you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties
may be assessed if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet
the reporting requirements in Sec.  63.1191 of this subpart, and must
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health;
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense must submit a written report to the Administrator with all
necessary supporting documentation that explains how it has met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. This
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise
required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant
standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If
such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less
than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the
affirmative defense report may be included in the second compliance,
deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1196 is amended by adding definitions, in alphabetical
order, for ``Closed-top cupola,'' ``Combined collection/curing
operations,'' and ``Open-top cupola'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1196  What definitions should I be aware of?

* * * * *
    Closed-top cupola means a cupola that operates as a closed
(process) system and has a restricted air flow rate.

    Combined collection/curing operations means the combination of
fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make bonded
products.
* * * * *
    Open-top cupola means a cupola that is open to the outside air and
operates with an air flow rate that is unrestricted and at low
pressure.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.1197 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1197  Startups and shutdowns.

    (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
    (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are utilized for
compliance with this subpart.
    (c) Startup begins when the coke interspersed with layers of rock
and/or slag and other mineral products are ignited. Startup ends when
molten mineral wool begins to flow from the cupola.
    (d) Shutdown begins when the cupola has reached the end of the
melting campaign and is empty. No mineral wool glass continues to flow
from the cupola during shutdown.
    (e) During periods of startups and shutdowns you may demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits in Sec.  63.1178 by keeping records
showing that your emissions were controlled using air pollution control
devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent
performance test that showed compliance with the standard.
0
9. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                       DDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                      Requirement         Applies to subpart DDD        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)....................  General Applicability..  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(a)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(12)..................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(b)(1)...........................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Determination.
63.1(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(b)(3)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(c)(1)-(c)(2)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Standard Established.
63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(5)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.1(d)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)..............................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................  .......................
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................  .......................
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................  .......................
63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.4(b)(1)-(b)(2)....................  Circumvention..........  Yes....................  .......................
63.4(c)..............................  Fragmentation..........  Yes....................  .......................
63.5(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Construction/            Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)...........................  Requirements for         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources..
63.5(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.5(b)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.5(c)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)..............................  Application for          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction or
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................  .......................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(f)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................  .......................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction Based
                                        on State Review.
63.6(a)..............................  Compliance with          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)....................  .......................  .......................  .......................
63.6(b)(6)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(c)(1)-(c)(2)....................  Compliance Dates for     Yes....................  Sec.   63.1180
                                        Existing Sources.                                 specifies compliance
                                                                                dates.
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(d)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................  General Duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180(d)
                                        minimize emissions.                               for general duty
                                                                                requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii).......................  Requirement to correct   No.....................  Sec.   63.1187(b)
                                        malfunctions as soon                              specifies additional
                                        as possible.                                      requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(iii)......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(e)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].

63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown        No.....................  Startups and shutdowns
                                        Malfunction (SSM) Plan.                           addressed in Sec.
                                                                                63.1197.
63.6(f)(1)-f(3)......................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  .......................
63.6(g)..............................  Alternative Nonopacity   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Emission Standard.
63.6(h)..............................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  .......................
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)...................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................  Sec.   63.1180 specfies
                                                                                the dates
63.6(i)(15)..........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)..........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(i)(j)...........................  Exemption from           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Compliance.
63.7(a)..............................  Performance Test         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.7(b)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Test.
63.7(c)..............................  Quality Assurance        Yes....................  .......................
                                        Program.
63.7(d)..............................  Performance Testing      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)...........................  Performance testing....  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180.
63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6(f)..............................  Use of an alternative    Yes....................  .......................
                                        test method.
63.7(g)(1)...........................  Data Analysis,           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Recordkeeping, and
                                        Reporting.
63.7(g)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.7(g)(3)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.7(h)..............................  Waiver of Performance    Yes....................  .......................
                                        Test.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability.
63.8(a)(3)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)...........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(b)..............................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................  .......................
63.8(c)(1)(i)........................  General duty to          No.....................  See Sec.   63.1180(e)
                                        minimize emissions and                            for general duty
                                        CMS operation.                                    requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(iii)......................  Requirement to develop   No.....................  .......................
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.
63.8(d)(3)...........................  Written procedures for   Yes, except for last     .......................
                                        CMS.                     sentence, which refers
                                                                 to SSM plan. SSM plans
                                                                 are not required.
63.8(e)..............................  Performance Evaluation   No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        of Continuous                                     require CMS
                                        Monitoring Systems.                               performance
                                                                                evaluations.
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)....................  Alternative Monitoring   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Method.
63.8(f)(6)...........................  Alternative to RATA      No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Test.                                             require CEMS.
63.8(g)(1)...........................  Reduction of Monitoring  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Data.
63.8(g)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                require COMS or CEMS.
63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(a)..............................  Notification             Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.9(b)(1)-(2).......................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(b)(3)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance   Yes....................  .......................
                                        Extension.
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification  Yes....................  .......................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/      No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Opacity Test.                                     include VE/opacity
                                                                                standards.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS           No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Notifications.                                    require CMS
                                                                                performance
                                                                                evaluation, COMS, or
                                                                                CEMS.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)....................  Notification of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)....................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes....................  .......................
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous       Yes....................  .......................
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes....................  .......................
                                        Applicability.
63.10(b)(1)..........................  General Recordkeeping    Yes....................  Sec.   63.1192 includes
                                        Requirements.                                     additional
                                                                                requirements.
63.10(b)(2)(i).......................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  .......................
                                        occurrence and
                                        duration of startups
                                        and shutdowns.

63.10(b)(2)(ii)......................  Recordkeeping of         No.....................  See Sec.   63.1193(c)
                                        malfunctions.                                     for recordkeeping of
                                                                                (ii) occurrence and
                                                                                duration and (iii)
                                                                                actions taken during
                                                                                malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).....................  Maintenance records....  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)..................  Actions taken to         No.....................  .......................
                                        minimize emissions
                                        during SSM.
63.10(b)(2)(vi)......................  Recordkeeping for CMS    Yes....................  .......................
                                        malfunctions.
63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)...............  Other CMS requirements.  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(1)..........................  Additional CMS           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)...................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)..........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(c)(6)..........................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                require CMS
                                                                                performance
                                                                                specifications.
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8)...................  Additional               Yes....................  .......................
                                        recordkeeping
                                        requirements for CMS--
                                        identifying
                                        exceedances and excess
                                        emissions.
63.10(c)(9)..........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(c)(11).................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1192 for
                                                                                recordkeeping of
                                                                                malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).................  .......................  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                require a CMS quality
                                                                                control program.
63.10(c)(15).........................  Use of SSM Plan........  No.....................  .......................
63.10(d)(1)..........................  General Reporting        Yes....................  Additional requirements
                                        Requirements.                                     in Sec.   63.1193.
63.10(d)(2)..........................  Performance Test         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Results.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Opacity or VE            No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                        Observations.                                     include VE/opacity
                                                                                standards.
63.10(d)(4)..........................  Progress Reports.......  Yes....................  .......................
63.10(d)(5)..........................  SSM reports............  No.....................  See Sec.   63.1193(f)
                                                                                for reporting of
                                                                                malfunctions.
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2)...................  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                require CEMS or CMS
                                                                                performance
                                                                                evaluations.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess Emissions/CMS     Yes....................  .......................
                                        Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  COMS Data Reports......  No.....................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                require COMS.
3.10(f)..............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................  .......................
                                        Waiver.
63.11(a).............................  Control Device           Yes....................  .......................
                                        Requirements
                                        Applicability.
63.11(b).............................  Flares.................  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
63.11(c).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice for
                                        Monitoring Equipment
                                        for Leaks.
63.11(d).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice Standard.
63.11(e).............................  Alternative Work         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Practice Requirements.
3.12.................................  State Authority and      Yes....................  .......................
                                        Delegations.
63.13................................  Addresses..............  Yes....................  .......................
63.14................................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  .......................
                                        Reference.
63.15................................  Availability of          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality.
63.16................................  Performance Track        Yes....................  .......................
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart NNN--[AMENDED]

0
10. Section 63.1380 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1380  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass
manufacturing line producing a bonded product.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``Gas-fired glass-melting furnace.''

Sec.  63.1381  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a
refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high
temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned
to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations,

superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat
exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and
electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and
instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing
molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including
flow channels, is not considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting
furnace. Cold-top electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in this
subpart are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1382  Emission standards.

    (a) Emission limits--(1) Glass-melting furnaces. On and after the
date the initial performance test is completed or required to be
completed under Sec.  63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier:
    (i) For each existing, new, or reconstructed glass-melting furnace
you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in
excess of 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton glass
pulled;
    (ii) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-
melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere in excess of 6.0E-5 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per
ton glass pulled (0.06 lb per thousand tons glass pulled).
    (2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. On after the date the initial
performance test is completed or required to be completed under Sec.
63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
    (i) For each existing rotary spin (RS) manufacturing line you must
not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess
of:
    (A) 0.19 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 0.26 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.83 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
    (ii) For each new or reconstructed RS manufacturing line you must
not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess
of:
    (A) 0.087 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 0.063 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.61 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
    (3) Flame attenuation manufacturing lines. On and after the date
the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed
under Sec.  63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
    (i) For each existing flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing line you
must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in
excess of:
    (A) 5.6 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 1.4 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
    (ii) For each new or reconstructed FA manufacturing line you must
not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess
of:
    (A) 3.3 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
    (B) 0.46 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
    (C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.1384 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1384  Performance test requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be
conducted within 90 days of the promulgation date of this rule to
demonstrate compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit
specified in Sec.  63.1382(a)(1)(i), you must conduct an annual
performance test for chromium compounds emissions from each glass-
melting furnace (no later than 12 calendar months following the
previous compliance test).
    (1) You must conduct chromium compounds emissions performance tests
according to Sec.  63.1385 on an annual basis, except as specified in
paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this section. Annual performance tests
must be completed no more than 13 months after the previous performance
test, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section.
    (2) You can conduct performance tests less often for chromium
compounds if your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2
consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 75 percent
of the emission limit and if there are no changes in the operation of
the affected source or air pollution control equipment that could
increase emissions. In this case, you do not have to conduct a
performance test for chromium compounds for the next 2 years. You must
conduct a performance test during the third year and no more than 37
months after the previous performance test.
    (3) If your gas-fired glass-melting furnace continues to meet the
emission limit for chromium compounds, you may choose to conduct
performance tests for the pollutant every third year if your emissions
are at or below 75 percent of the emission limit and if there are no
changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution
control equipment that could increase emissions, but each such
performance test must be conducted no more than 37 months after the
previous performance test.
    (4) If a performance test shows chromium compounds emissions
exceeded 75 percent of the emission limit, you must conduct annual
performance tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over a
consecutive 2-year period meet the required level of 75 percent of the
emission limit.
    (e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to
demonstrate compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol
emissions limits specified in Sec.  63.1382, you must conduct a
performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable
PM, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol emissions limits in Sec.  63.1382
of this subpart at least once every 5 years.
0
14. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6)
and adding paragraphs (a)(11) through (15) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1385  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of
total PM. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of 2 hours and a
minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). The probe
and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 120 14[deg]C (248 25 [deg]F);
    (6) Method 318 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration
of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Each test run must consist of a
minimum of 10 spectra;
* * * * *
    (11) Method 316 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the concentration
of formaldehyde. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 2 hours and
2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of sample volume;
    (12) Method SW-846 0010 and Method SW-846 8760D (http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/) for the concentration of
phenol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 3 hours;
    (13) Method 8270D for the concentration of phenol. Each test run
must consist of a minimum of 3 hours;
    (14) Method 308 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the concentration
of

methanol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 2 hours;
    (15) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration
of chromium compounds. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 3
hours and 3 dscm of sample volume;
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1386  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Records and reports for a failure to meet a standard. (1) In
the event that an affected unit fails to meet a standard, record the
number of failures since the prior notification of compliance status.
For each failure record the date, time and duration of each failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet a standard record and retain a list of
the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.1382, including corrective actions to restore process and air
pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
    (4) If an affected unit fails to meet a standard, report such
events in the notification of compliance status required by Sec.
63.1386(a)(7). Report the number of failures to meet a standard since
the prior notification. For each instance, report the date, time and
duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a
list of the affected units or equipment, an estimate of the volume of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard and a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.1388 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1388  Startups and shutdowns.

    (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
    (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or
utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during
times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed
to such items of equipment.
    (c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace
has any raw materials added and reaches 50 percent of its typical
operating temperature. Startup ends when molten glass begins to flow
from the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace.
    (d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting
furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down
process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the
contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the
glass-melting furnace.
    (e) During periods of startups and shutdowns you may demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits in Sec.  63.1382 by keeping records
showing that your furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution
control devices operated at the parameters established by the most
recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard.

0
17. Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63 revised to read as follows:

  Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                       NNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                      Requirement         Applies to subpart NNN        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)....................  General Applicability..  Yes....................
63.1(a)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(12)..................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(b)(1)...........................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................
                                        Determination.
63.1(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(b)(3)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(c)(1)-(c)(2)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(5)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.1(d)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)..............................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................
63.3.................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.4(b)(1)-(b)(2)....................  Circumvention..........  Yes....................
63.4(c)..............................  Fragmentation..........  Yes....................
63.5(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction
                                        Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)...........................  Requirements for         Yes....................
                                        Existing, Newly
                                        Constructed, and
                                        Reconstructed Sources.
63.5(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4)....................  .......................  Yes....................
63.5(b)(5)...........................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(6)...........................  .......................  Yes....................
63.5(c)..............................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)..............................  Application for          Yes....................
                                        Approval of
                                        Construction or
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.

63.5(f)..............................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction Based