1

SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PANEL

Report on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule

“National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing”

December 6, 2013
2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 

2. Background 

2.1 Background and Regulatory History 

2.2 Description of Proposed Rule and Scope of Rule 

2.3 Related Federal Rules 

3. Overview of Proposal under Consideration 

4. Applicable Small Entity Definitions 

5. Small Entities That May Be Subject to the Proposed Regulation 

6. Summary of Small Entity Outreach 

6.1 Small Entity Outreach 

6.2 Summary of EPA’s Outreach Meeting with Potential Small Entity Representatives

7. List of Small Entity Representatives 

8. Summary of Comments from Small Entity Representatives 

8.1 Summary of March 14, 2013 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting 

8.2 Summary of Written Comments from Potential Small Entity Representatives

Submitted After March 14, 2013 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting 

8.3 Summary of June 26, 2013 Panel Outreach Meeting

8.4 Summary of Written Comments from Small Entity Representatives Submitted After 

June 26, 2013 Panel Outreach Meeting

9. Panel Findings and Discussions 

9.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected 

9.2 Potential Reporting, Record Keeping, and Compliance 

9.3 Related Federal Rules 

9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives 

9.4.1 Work Practice Standards

9.4.2 Health Based Emissions Limits (HBEL) For HF, HCl and Cl2

9.4.3 Subcategorization

9.4.4 PM HAP Metals Limit

9.4.5 Start Up/Shut Down

Appendix A: List of Materials EPA Shared with Small Entity Representatives

Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives 
3

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is presented by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel or

Panel) convened for the proposed rulemaking “National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing” that is currently being developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), a Panel is required to be convened prior to publication of the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that an agency may be required to prepare under the RFA. 

In addition to EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, the Panel consists of the Director of 

the Sector Policies and Programs Division of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, the 

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of

Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration. 

This report includes the following:

 Background information on the proposed rule being developed;

 Information on the types of small entities that would be subject to the proposed rule;

 A description of efforts made to obtain the advice and recommendations of 

representatives of those small entities; and

 A summary of the comments that have been received to date from those representatives.

Section 609(b) of the RFA directs the Panel to report on the comments of small entity 

representatives (SERs) and make findings on issues related to elements of an IRFA under section 

603 of the RFA. Those elements of an IRFA are: 

 A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which 

the proposed rule will apply; 

 A description of projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements 

of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be 

subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of 

the report or record;

 An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; 

 A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the 

stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 

Once completed, the Panel Report is provided to the agency issuing the proposed rule and is 

included in the rulemaking record. The agency is to consider the Panel’s findings when 

completing the draft of the proposed rule. In light of the Panel Report, and where appropriate, the 

agency is also to consider whether changes are needed to the IRFA for the proposed rule or the 

decision on whether an IRFA is required. 
4

The Panel’s findings and discussion will be based on the information available at the time the

final Panel Report is drafted. EPA will continue to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed 

rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained during the remainder of the rule 

development process. 

Any options identified by the Panel for reducing the rule’s regulatory impact on small entities 

may require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are practicable, 

enforceable, environmentally sound, and consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its 

amendments. 

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Regulatory History of the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing

The EPA previously determined that the clay products manufacturing industry, which included 

Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP), may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed in section 112(b) of the CAA. As a consequence, clay 

products manufacturing was included in the initial list of HAP-emitting categories published July 

16, 1992, in the Federal Register and included in the draft schedule for the promulgation of 

emissions standards published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1992. EPA promulgated 

the NESHAP for brick and structural clay products on May 16, 2003, and the rule became 

effective on that same date. The compliance date was May 16, 2006. The NESHAP was 

subsequently challenged, and the D.C. Circuit (The Court) vacated the standards on March 13,

2007. The Court found that EPA’s emissions standards did not meet CAA statutory 

requirements. Because the vacatur was after the compliance date, some facilities had installed 

controls to meet the requirements of the rule. 

2.2 Description and Scope of the Rule

When finalized, the rule for BSCP manufacturing will apply to kilns and dryers at BSCP 

manufacturing facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions. The BSCP manufacturing 

source category includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick, structural brick, brick 

pavers, and other brick); clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, 

dimensional clay products

2.3 Related Federal Rules

These sources may also be subject to emissions limits for criteria pollutants requirements under 

new source review. We would not expect any requirements resulting from new source review to

conflict with requirements under the Brick NESHAP. We not believe there are any other Federal 

regulations applicable to this industry which overlap or conflict.

3. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL UNDER CONSIDERATION

3.1 Potential Requirements and Guidelines of the Proposal
5

This rulemaking will establish emissions standards for HAP based on MACT for brick 

manufacturing facilities that are major sources of HAP. A major source is a source that emits or 

has the potential to emit (considering controls) 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any one HAP, or 

25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. The EPA has identified two HAP-emitting sources 

at brick manufacturing facilities: brick kilns and dryers. The HAP emitted from brick 

manufacturing kilns are HF, HCl, Cl2, Non mercury HAP metals, Mercury, and Dioxin. The 

pollutants emitted from dryers are dioxins only. All of these pollutants will be addressed in this 

rulemaking.

The EPA will use the available air emissions data to calculate the MACT floors, including data 

from the previous 2003 rulemaking and data collected in 2010 under section 114 of the CAA. 

Any MACT limits will be based on data from best-performing sources (regardless of any 

technology installed). As provided by CAA section 112, emissions standards for existing sources 

must not be less stringent than the MACT floor, as calculated pursuant to section 112(d)(3). In 

addition, EPA will evaluate whether to set emissions levels more stringent than the floor, called 

beyond-the-floor standards. The CAA also provides that EPA may set work practice standards 

under certain circumstances, including where the application of measurement methodologies is 

not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. With respect to pollutants for 

which a health threshold has been established, EPA may also consider that threshold level, with 

an ample margin of safety, when establishing emissions standards. 

The emissions limits associated with the MACT floor could potentially require the installation of 

new controls and, in some cases, replacement of less efficient existing controls, some of which 

were installed to meet the vacated rule. We believe the impacts of applying MACT standards to 

this industry could possibly result in significant economic impacts.

3.2 Alternatives that are under consideration

EPA is evaluating different alternatives for setting standards consistent with the requirements of 

section 112(d), including, for example the alternatives shown below

Emissions Source or Pollutant Regulatory Alternative under 

Consideration

Periodic Kilns Work Practice Standards for All 

Pollutants

Dryers – Dioxin Emissions Work Practice Standards

Tunnel Kilns – all pollutants Subcategorization of kilns by size or 

other criteria

Tunnel Kilns – HF, HCl and Cl2 Emissions Health Threshold Limits

4. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS
6

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) defines small entities as including “small businesses,” 

“small governments,” and “small organizations” (5 USC 601). The regulatory revisions being 

considered by EPA for this rulemaking are expected to affect a variety of small businesses, but 

would not affect any small governments or small organizations. The RFA references the 

definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) to further define “small business” by regulation. SBA’s

definitions of small business by size standards using the North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) can be found at 13 CFR 121.201. 

The detailed listing of SBA definitions of small business for affected industries or sectors, by 

NAICS code, is included in table 1 in section 5, below.

5. SMALL ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED 

REGULATION

 

The following table lists industries/sectors potentially affected by the regulation. The estimated 

number of small firms within each NAICS code and the number of employees in those small 

firms is shown.

Table: Industry Sectors, Definitions & Number of Small Entities 

Potentially Affected by EPA’s Planned Action1

Name of Industry/Sector 2012 NAICS 

Code

SBA Size Small 

Business 

Standard 

Number of 

Small

Firms

Total 

Number of 

Firms

Clay Building Material and 

Refractories Manufacturing

 327120 750 employees 38 46

1 EPA database

We note that the number of brick manufacturers has declined since 2003 from 89 to 46. The number of 

small businesses appears to have declined similarly.

6. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH

On June 26, 2013 the SBAR Panel held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In 

addition to the materials that the SERs received for the pre-Panel outreach, the SERs were 

provided with background information in an outreach packet, which can be found in Appendix 

A, to help them prepare for the teleconference and prepare their comments on the proposed 

rulemaking. 

During the Panel Outreach Meeting, 16 representatives that were selected for this SBREFA 

process participated in the meeting. The meeting opened with a short introduction for SERs on 

the purpose of the SBREFA Panel process and the Panel Outreach Meeting, a brief description of 
7

the Panel process, and a presentation from Susan Miller of Brick Industry Association on the 

current state and challenges of the industry. The remainder of the Outreach Meeting itself

focused on the Outreach Packet that was sent to SERs and potential regulatory flexibilities. 

Lastly, EPA asked that the SERs provide feedback on the Outreach Packet materials as well as 

the outreach meeting itself, and SERs were asked to send any written comments by 

July 11, 2013. The outreach meeting with SERs was held to solicit feedback on the information 

provided and their suggestions for the upcoming rulemaking. During the meeting, the SERs were 

also asked to provide written feedback on ideas under consideration for the proposed rulemaking 

and responses to questions in the Outreach Packet. Comments made during the outreach 

meetings and written comments submitted by the SERs are summarized in section 8 of this 

document. Written comments received are included in Appendix B. 
8

7. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES

Organization Name SER Name Title

Brick Industry Association Susan Miller Vice President, Environmental, Health & Safety

Brick Industry Association Paul Regina Tech. Assistant, Environment Health & Safety

Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. Carol Conley Vice President, HR, & Environmental Affairs 

Columbus Brick Co. Ed Thebaud General Manger

Commercial Brick Corp. Bob Harstok President

Continental Brick Co. Don Sult Vice President

Cunningham Brick Co., Inc. Richard Cunningham Corporate Secretary

Elgin-Butler Brick Co. Don Belcher Vice President of Manufacturing

Endicott Clay Production Gary Davis Vice President of Sales 

Henry Brick Co., Inc. Davis Henry Vice President Projects 

Lee Brick and Tile Co. John Burns Plant Manager

McAvoy Brick Co. Creighton McAvoy President

Mutual Materials Co. George Beamer President

Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc. Preston McMillan Vice President 

Sioux City Brick and Tile Co. Steven Gerhart Vice President of Administration & Law 

Statesville Brick Co. Steve Moose Director of Engineering & Technical Services

Whitacre Greer John Miller Engineering, EHS Manager

Helper SERs

Some SERs request the assistance of an outside expert to advise them during the panel process. 

These “Helper SERs”, as they are referred, attend and participate in the panel outreach meetings 

and provide technical, scientific, and or legal expertise to a SER. During the Brick MACT SBAR 

Panel William Wehrum of Hunton & Williams LLP and Terry Schimmel of Boral Bricks 

participated on behalf of the Brick Industry Association and Whitacre Greer respectively.
9

8. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM POTENTIAL SMALL ENTITY

REPRESENTATIVES

8.1 Summary of March 14, 2013 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting 

The Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting was conducted as follows:

2:00 Welcome and Introductions 

2:15 RFA/SBREFA Overview 

2:30 Background Presentation 

3:30 Brick Industry Association Presentation

3:50 Discussion 

4:15 Summary and Closing 

8.2 Summary of Written Comments from Potential SERs Submitted After 

March 14, 2013 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting 

Brick Industry Association (BIA)

 Supports health-based standard, believes brick industry is a logical candidate for such an 

approach. 

 Requested consideration of less conservative approaches to health-based standards rather 

than a single emissions limit for all sources. 

 Questioned the use of short term indicators for this category. 

 Concerned about the availability and affordability of controls to remove small amounts of 

non-threshold pollutants.

 Removal of viable controls - Opposed to standards that would require removal of existing 

controls.

 Is opposed to the use of data from units that installed controls to meet the vacated Brick 

NESHAP.

 Is opposed to inclusion of data from synthetic area sources.

 Believes EPA should be using 12 percent of the category, not 12 percent of the stack data,

when establishing MACT floors for most, if not all, pollutants and subcategories.

 Is concerned about cost estimates, assumptions and requested information.

 EPA should continue to use the same subcategories of tunnel kilns that were used in the 

previous rulemaking. 

 Requested a reduction in the number of scenarios under consideration. 
10

 Requested information identifying data gaps that need to be filled to ensure that EPA can

support conclusions regarding subcategorization of periodic kilns, work practices for 

periodic kilns and work practices for dioxin emissions.

 Requested information on compliance approaches.

Cherokee Brick & Tile Company

 Family-owned business for over 113 years.

 Spent $1.5 million on controls to meet vacated NESHAP.

 Concerned that new standards would require removal/replacement of controls installed to 

meet the vacated standards.

 Questioned the regulation of mercury and dioxin due to the small quantity emitted and the 

cost of control.

Continental Brick Company

 Pleased that EPA is considering health-based standard.

 Requirement for additional controls will put them out of business.

 Subcategorization of older, smaller kilns can be justified based on design and operational 

differences.

Cunningham Brick

 Small, family-owned business, 104 year old business with 135 employees at two facilities

 Cannot afford controls, fears that EPA standards would result in survival of only large

corporations.

 Unless reasonable subcategorization on emission tonnage allowances is permitted, the 

company will face cessation.

Endicott Clay Products

 Supports the letter sent by BIA.

McAvoy Brick

 Economic climate the past four years has been devastating to brick industry, especially to 

smaller manufacturers.

 Brick industry is not like cement industry.

 Request that EPA consider health-based standards.

 Supports BIA letter.

Mutual Materials

 Supports subcategorization of tunnel kilns based on size, age or a combination of both.

 Provided information regarding differences between large, small, new and old kilns.

 Supports subcategorization of periodic kilns.

 Supports health-based standards.

 Expressed concern regarding methodology used to calculate standards. Believe we should 

set standards based on 12 percent of population rather than 12 percent of the dataset.
11

 Standards should not be based on data from facilities that have low emissions due to the 

content of their raw materials.

Statesville Brick

 Health-based studies. What approaches has EPA considered that would not tighten the 

limits?

 What controls can be used with wood firing?

 Statesville Brick is a small company. How is it that EPA would group them with other 

companies that are worldwide with unlimited resources.

Whitacre Greer

 Supports health-based standards.

 Supports subcategorization of kilns by size. Believes 10 tons per hour (tph) is a reasonable 

breakpoint. 

 Operates small kilns to produce firebrick and pavers.

 Discussed differences in small and larger kilns (firing, car size, door design, kiln 

construction).

 Design and operational differences are important to uniqueness of product. 

 Addition of APCD is not supportable and would require redesign of kiln.

8.3 Summary of June 26, 2013 Panel Outreach Meeting

The Panel Outreach Meeting was conducted as follows:

1:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions

1:15 p.m. Overview of Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA-SBREFA)

1:30 p.m. EPA overview of proposed rulemaking, options, cost estimates 

3:00 Brick Industry Association presentation

Q&A/ Discussion 

3:30 p.m. Summary and Closing

8.4 Summary of Written Comments from Small Entity Representatives Submitted 

After June 26, 2013 Panel Outreach Meeting

Brick Industry Association (BIA)

 EPA should develop health-based standards for threshold pollutants and work practice 

standards for all other HAP emitted at or near detection levels.

 If EPA also proposes “traditional” MACT emissions limits for the threshold pollutants, 

EPA should consider a single “gaseous HAP” limit. 
12

 Stack tests do not represent periods of start-up, shutdown, malfunction and routine 

maintenance. Work practice standards are warranted during these periods.

 EPA should fully evaluate technical and economic feasibility of MACT options. BIA 

believes EPA has underestimated cost and economic impact of the rule.

Cherokee Brick & Tile Company

 Does not agree with subcategorization based on raw material and does not 

agree with testing of raw materials.

 Dry Limestone Adsorbers (DLA) were installed to meet vacated rule and are 

effective. 

 No reason to believe that replacing existing DLA with alternative controls 

would lead to a better result. 

 Work practice standards for pollutants that are essentially at non-detect levels 

are appropriate.

Continental Brick Company

 Health-based compliance standard for acid gas would be of benefit to 

Continental.

 Hopes EPA will provide work practice standards for Hg, PM and dioxin.

 Subcategorization by size, raw material, age and fuel should be considered.

Endicott Clay Products

 Estimated air pollution control costs, on top of other rising costs, would require 

an unprecedented price increase. 

 Obtaining bank loans will be difficult and would likely be shorter term with 

higher interest.

Mutual Materials

 Health-based standards for threshold pollutants.

 Health-based concept combined with raw material and/or kiln size 

subcategorization might be acceptable.

 Cost of controls is unreasonable, cost of becoming “synthetic minor” is 

prohibitive.

 Is facing near certain closure if MACT costs are as presented at the June 26, 

2013 meeting. 

 Health-based standards for threshold pollutants and work practices for other 

pollutants are preferred.

Statesville Brick

 Fires sawdust.

 Send the majority of the kiln exhaust through a sawdust dryer which they understand helps 

to lower emissions.

 Made business decisions based on the small kiln subcategory.

 Does not object to subcategories of “under 10 tph”, “over 10 tph” or "kilns built 

after 2014 or whenever the regulations are completed."
13

Whitacre Greer

 Becoming a synthetic minor source is an option but is not reasonable due to 

cost.

 Getting a bank to approve a loan to buy air pollution controls would be near 

impossible.

 Health-based solution for threshold emissions, combining gaseous HAP and 

work practice standards for other emissions is appropriate.

 Subcategorization of kilns by size should be continued.

Sioux City Brick and Tile Company

 Operates 3 kilns with two DLA and one Dry Injection Fabric Filter (DIFF) and 

states that it would be impossible to finance retrofits.

 Grandfathering of companies that complied with vacated MACT is needed.

 Supports work practices during startup and shutdown.

Pine Hall Brick

 Health-based approach for threshold pollutants combined with work practices 

for others is the most practical approach.

 If work practices are not adopted for metal HAP, there should be consideration 

of setting individual metal HAP rates in addition to PM.

8.5 Other outreach and discussions with the Brick Industry

In addition to the discussions noted above, EPA had several meetings with brick industry 

representatives to discuss emissions data, potential raw material sampling, acid gas modeling and 

other issues.

9. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

9.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected 

For a complete description of the small entities to which the proposed rule may apply, see 

section 5. 

9.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance 

There are requirements still under development. However, we anticipate that the requirements 

will be the minimum required by the statute to ensure compliance with the emission limits.

9.3 Related Federal Rules 

There are no related Federal Rules for this source category.

9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives 
14

9.4.1 Work Practice Standards 

Section 112(h) of the CAA allows EPA to set work practice standards if in the judgment of the 

Administrator, it is not feasible to set or enforce numerical limits because the application of 

measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations, or a 

pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed to capture the pollutant. 

In general, the SERs support work practice standards for mercury, HAP metals and dioxin. The 

Panel believes that EPA should consider work practice standards where it can be justified under 

section 112(h). 

The Panel recommends that EPA propose work practices for dioxin and take comment on the 

feasibility of work practice standards for mercury and other metals. The discussion of work 

practices for mercury and other metals should clearly identify any areas where the agency 

believes that the data do not support work practices to allow for meaningful comments, and also 

discuss work practice alternatives with sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as 

an alternative in the final rule.

9.4.2 Health Based Emissions Limits (HBEL) For HF, HCl and Cl2

A recurring comment from the SERs is that health-based standards for acid gases are supportable 

and are perhaps the most important step EPA can take to lessen the financial impact the Brick 

MACT may impose on small entities. Therefore, the SERs believe HBEL should be a critical 

component of any future rule to lessen the impact on small entities. 

The panel recommends that EPA co-propose both a health-based limit and MACT limits for acid 

gases unless EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to propose a numerical health-based 

limit.

9.4.3 Subcategorization

The vacated Brick MACT included subcategorization of kilns based on size. The SERs support 

continued subcategorization of kilns based on size and type (tunnel kilns vs. periodic kilns). The 

SERs also commented that EPA should consider subcategories based on raw materials, fuel and 

other factors. There appears to be sufficient information to support subcategories based on type 

and size, but data and information are lacking for subcategorization based on raw materials and 

fuels.

The panel recommends that EPA propose separate subcategories for kilns based on size if it 

reduces the financial impact and that EPA should take comment and solicit data on 

subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels and other factors.

The SERs also suggested a subcategory for facilities that installed controls to meet the vacated 

rule. The panel has determined that there is no legal basis for establishing subcategories based 

upon those criteria.

One SER commented that they send the majority of the kiln exhaust through a sawdust dryer, 

which prepares the sawdust for burning. The source was told this also lowers emissions. SERs 

commented that EPA should address the issue of limits for kilns with sawdust dryers.
15

The panel currently does not have enough information to address this issue. The panel 

recommends that EPA specifically request information, at proposal, on how the presence of 

sawdust dryers would affect emissions and control costs. 

9.4.4 PM HAP Metals Limit

For source categories with emissions of non-mercury HAP metals, EPA has generally used 

particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for non-mercury metals. The SERs commented that if 

EPA were to include an alternative emission limit for total non-mercury HAP metals, it would 

provide additional flexibility for some sources. They requested that EPA allow sources the 

option of complying with a PM limit or a total non-mercury metals limit.

The panel agrees that this approach would provide additional flexibility and recommends that 

EPA propose both a PM numerical limit and a total non-mercury metal HAP limit. Sources could 

thus determine compliance either through direct measurement of HAP metals or measurement of 

PM as a surrogate for HAP metals.

9.4.5 Start Up/Shut Down

The SERs commented that no testing has ever been conducted during kiln start-up and shutdown. 

The SERs indicate that stack tests do not accurately represent emissions periods of start-up and 

shutdown and recommended that work practices be required during those periods. 

As noted above, section 112(h) of the CAA allows EPA to set work practice standards if it is not 

feasible to set numerical limits. The panel recommends that EPA propose work practice 

standards for startup and shutdown.

9.4.6 Determination of MACT Floors. 

For most, if not all, pollutants and subcategories, the SERs commented that EPA should

calculate the floor based on 12 percent of the entire source category, as opposed to 12 percent of 

the data available to the agency when EPA cannot establish that such data reflects the best 

performing sources.

The Panel recommends that EPA set the floor based on 12 percent of the entire source category 

if EPA can establish that the data available to the agency represent the best performing sources 

consistent with section 112 of the CAA and relevant case law. 
16

Appendix A: List of Materials EPA shared with Small Entity Representatives 

 Brick Panel Draft Options Table_06.12.2013

 Brick Panel Outreach Presentation Slides_06.12.2013

 Brick Panel Revised Control Information_06.12.2013

 BSCP Cost Scenarios-03-21-13

 BSCP Unit Costs_6-20-13

 ACI costs
17

Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by SERs following Panel Outreach
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37