1



## SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY REVIEW PANEL

Report on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule

“ National Emission s Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Maximum Achievable Control Technology

for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing ”

December 6

, 20132 

### 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

, 201 3 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 Emission s Limits (HBEL) For HF, HCl and Cl 2 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 S mall Entity Representatives

Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives3

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is presented by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel or Panel) convened for the proposed rulemaking “National Emission s Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for Brick and

Struct ural 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 199 6 (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 Polic ies 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 th e 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 obta in 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

r epresentatives (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 nece ssary 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 re ducing 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 s ection 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 t he Federal Register and included in the draft schedule for the promulgation of

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

t he NESHAP for brick and structural clay products o n May 16, 2003, and the rule beca me 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 emission s standards did not meet CAA statutor y 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; e xtruded 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 Proposal5

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 b rick manufacturing kilns are HF, HCl, Cl 2 , Non mercury HAP metals, Mercury, and Dioxin. The pollutants emitted from dryer s 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 o f 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 tha n the MACT floor, as calculated pursuant to section 112(d)(3). In addition, EPA will evaluate whether to set emissions levels more stringent tha n the floor, called beyond

- the

- floor standards. The CAA also provides that EPA may set work practice standards under certain circumstances, inc luding where the application of measurement methodologies is not practicable due to technological and eco no mic 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 emission s limits associated with the MACT floor could potentially require the installation of new controls and, in some cases, replacement of less ef ficient 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 Cl 2 Emissions Health Threshold Limits

4. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS6

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 exp ected 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 bu siness for affected industries or sectors, by NAICS code, is included in t able 1 in s ection 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 Action 1

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 not e 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 p roposed rulemaking.

Durin g 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 of7

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

current s tate 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 w as held to solicit feedback on the information provided and their suggestions for the upco ming 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 SER s 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, Env ironmental, 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

Com mercial 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 Pro duction 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 respecti vely.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 I ndu stry A s s o ciat i o n (BIA)

 Supports health

- based standard , believes brick industry is a logical candidate for such an
approach.

 Requested consideration of less c on ser v at i v e ap p r o ac h es to health

- based standards rather
than a single emission s 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

.

 Rem o v a l o f v i ab l e c on t r o l s

- 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 E P A s h o u ld be u si n g 1 2 p e r cent o f t h e ca t eg o r y
, n o t 1 2 per c ent o f t h e st a ck d a t a,

w h en es t a b lish in g M A C T f l oo rs f o r m o st, if n o t al l

, p o ll u tants and su b cat e g o ries

.

 Is concerned about cost estimates

, assumptions and requested information.

 E P A s h o u ld c o n ti nu e t o use t h e s a m e su b cat e g o ries o f t unn el k il n s t h at w e r e u sed in the

pr e v i o u s ru l e m aki ng

.

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

 Requested information identifying data ga p s that n e ed to be fil l ed t o ens u re that E P A can

su p p o rt c o n cl u si o n s regarding subcategorization of p eriodic k ilns, work practices for

p eriodic k ilns and w ork p ractices for d i o xin e m iss i o n s

.

 Requested information on c o m p lia n ce approaches.

C h e r o k e e Brick & Ti l e C omp a n y

 Family

- owned business for over 113 year s.

 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 h ealth

- b ased 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 pe rmitted, 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 b rick i ndustry, especially to

smaller manufacturers

.

 Brick i ndustry is not like ce ment 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

 Standard s 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 co ntrols 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 I ndu stry A s s o ciat i o n (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 emission s limits for the threshold pollutants,

EPA should consider a s ingle “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 op tions. BIA believes EPA has underestimated cost and economic impact of the rule.

C h e r o k e e Brick & Ti l e C omp a n y

 Does not agree with subcategorization based on raw material and does not agree with testing of raw materials.

 Dry Limestone Adsorber s ( 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

 He alth

- 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 certa in 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 compl eted

. "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 gaseo us 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 add ition 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

s ection 5.

9.2 Potential Reporting, Record k eeping, and Compliance

There are requirements still under development. However, we anticipate that the requirements will be the minimum required by the statu t e to en sure compliance with the emission limits.

9.3 Related Federal Rules

There are no related Federal Rules for this source category.

9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives14

9.4.1 Work Practice Standards

S ection 112(h) of the CAA allows EPA to set work practice standard s 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 techn ological 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 wh ere 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 Hea lth Based Emission s Limits (HBEL) For HF, HCl and C l 2 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 si ze 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 da ta 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 dat a 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. T he source was told this also lower s emissions. SERs

commented that E P A s h o u ld addr ess 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

. T hey 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 n o t es t i n g has e v er b e e n c o ndu ct e d d u ri n g kiln s t ar t

- up and sh u td o wn

. The SER s indicate that sta c k t es t s d o n o t accurately r epr e sent emissions p er i o d s o f s t ar t

- up and

s h u td o wn and recommended that work practices be required during those periods.

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

feasible to set numerical limits. T he 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, t he SERs commented that E P A s h o u ld

calculate the floor based on 1 2 p e r cent o f t h e entire source ca t eg o r y
, as opposed to 1 2 per c ent o f

t h e data available to the a gency when EPA cannot establish that such data reflects the best performing sources.

The P anel 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 a gency 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 costs17

Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by SERs following Panel Outreach1819202122232425262728293031323334353637