Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 206 October 26, 2015 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Final Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291; FRL–9933–13–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AP69 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products (BSCP) 

Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing. All major 

sources in these categories must meet 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards for 

mercury (Hg), non-mercury (non-Hg) 

metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or 

particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and 

dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only); 

health-based standards for acid gas 

HAP; and work practice standards, 

where applicable. The final rule, which 

has been informed by input from 

industry (including small businesses), 

environmental groups, and other 

stakeholders, protects air quality and 

promotes public health by reducing 

emissions of HAP listed in section 112 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This action is effective on 

December 28, 2015. The incorporation 

by reference of certain publications 

listed in this rule is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

December 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

dockets for this rulemaking under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. 

All documents in the dockets are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744 and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the final rule for BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon 

Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing 

Group, Sector Policies and Program 

Division (D243–04), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

2825; Fax number: (919) 541–5450; 

Email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. This preamble includes 

several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories and risk modeling. While 

this list may not be exhaustive, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

ACI activated carbon injection 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

APCD air pollution control device 

ASOS Automated Surface Observing 

Systems 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BIA Brick Industry Association 

BLD bag leak detection 

BSCP Brick and Structural Clay Products 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California Environmental 

Protection Agency 

CASRN Chemical Abstract Services 

Registry Number 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Cl2 chlorine 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring 

system 

CRA Congressional Review Act 

DHHS Department of Health and Human 

Services 

DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter 

DLA dry limestone adsorber 

DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter 

DOD Department of Defense 

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FF fabric filter 

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act 

FRFA final regulatory flexibility analysis 

FTIR Fourier transform infrared 

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HBEL health-based emission limit 

HCl hydrogen chloride 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model 

(Community and Sector version 1.3.1) 

HF hydrogen fluoride 

Hg mercury 

HI hazard index 

HQ hazard quotient 

IARC International Agency for Research on 

Cancer 

ICR information collection request 

IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

lb/hr pounds per hour 

lb/ton pounds per ton 

LML lowest measured level 

LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects 

level 

LOEL lowest observed effects level 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per 

year 

MRL Minimal Risk Level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP national emissions standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

ng/kg nanograms per kilogram 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

No. number 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOAEL no observed adverse effect level 

Non-Hg non-mercury 

NOX nitrogen oxides 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

NWS National Weather Service 

O2 oxygen 

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment 

OM&M operation, maintenance and 

monitoring 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

%R percent recovery 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less 

than 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

ppm parts per million 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RfD reference dose 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review 

SBE Standard Brick Equivalent 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65471 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TEQ 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

toxic equivalents 

TOSHI target-organ-specific hazard index 

tph tons per hour 

tpy tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

mg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VE visible emissions 

yr year 

Background Information Documents. 

On December 18, 2014, the EPA 

proposed NESHAP for BSCP 

Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing (79 FR 75622). 

In this action, we are finalizing the 

rules. Documents summarizing the 

public comments on the proposal and 

presenting the EPA responses to those 

comments are available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for BSCP 

Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing. 

Organization of This Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for the 

final rule? 

B. What actions preceded this final rule? 

C. What are the health effects of pollutants 

emitted from the BSCP and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source 

categories? 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What are the final rule requirements for 

BSCP Manufacturing? 

B. What are the final rule requirements for 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing? 

C. What are the requirements during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

D. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

E. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

F. What materials are being incorporated 

by reference under 1 CFR part 51? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal and Rationale 

A. What are the significant changes since 

proposal for the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP? 

B. What are the significant changes since 

proposal for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP? 

C. What are the changes to monitoring 

requirements since proposal? 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and 

Responses 

A. Health-Based Standards 

B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 

VI. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, 

Energy and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the cost and emission 

reduction impacts? 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the benefits? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to set emissions standards for 

HAP emitted by sources in each source 

category and subcategory listed under 

section 112(c). We issued the NESHAP 

for BSCP Manufacturing and the 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing on May 16, 2003. The 

two NESHAP were vacated and 

remanded by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit on March 13, 2007. To address 

the vacatur and remand of the original 

NESHAP, we are issuing standards for 

BSCP manufacturing facilities and clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities 

located at major sources. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions 

a. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

The EPA is finalizing MACT emission 

limits for non-Hg HAP metals (or PM 

surrogate) and Hg, and a health-based 

emission limit (HBEL) for acid gases 

(hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) and chlorine (Cl2)) for 

BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA 

is finalizing work practice standards for 

periodic kilns, dioxins/furans from 

tunnel kilns, and periods of startup and 

shutdown for tunnel kilns. To 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits, the EPA is requiring 

initial and repeat 5-year performance 

testing for the regulated pollutants, 

parameter monitoring, and daily visible 

emissions (VE) checks. Owners/

operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are 

equipped with a fabric filter (FF) (e.g., 

dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), 

dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF)) 

have the option of demonstrating 

compliance using a bag leak detection 

(BLD) system or daily VE checks. 

b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP 

The EPA is finalizing MACT emission 

limits for Hg, PM (surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals), and dioxins/furans and 

HBEL for acid gases (HF and HCl) for 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic 

tile roller kilns. In addition, the EPA is 

finalizing MACT emission limits for 

dioxins/furans for ceramic tile spray 

dryers and floor tile press dryers, MACT 

emission limits for Hg and PM 

(surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for 

ceramic tile glaze lines and MACT 

emission limits for PM (surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware 

glaze spray booths. The EPA is also 

finalizing work practice standards for 

shuttle kilns and periods of startup and 

shutdown. To demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits, the EPA is 

requiring initial and repeat 5-year 

performance testing for the regulated 

pollutants, parameter monitoring, and 

daily VE checks. Owners/operators 

whose affected sources are equipped 

with an FF (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the 

option of demonstrating compliance 

using a BLD system or daily VE checks. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

Table 1 of this preamble summarizes 

the costs and benefits of this action for 

40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP), while Table 2 

of this preamble summarizes the costs of 

this action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP). See section VI of this 

preamble for further discussion of the 

costs and benefits for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP and the costs 

for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP. See section VII.B of this 

preamble for discussion of the 

recordkeeping and reporting costs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART JJJJJ 

(Millions of 2011 dollars) 

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost Net benefit (7 percent discount). a

Emission controls .................................................................... $62.3 $23.7 $48 to 150. 

Emissions testing .................................................................... 2.26 0.552 

Monitoring ............................................................................... — 0.352 

a Net benefit is the annual cost subtracted from the total monetized benefits (at a 7-percent discount rate). For more information, see section 7 

of ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS OF 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKKK 

(Millions of 2011 dollars) 

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost 

Emission controls ......................................................................................................................................... $0 $0 

Emissions testing ......................................................................................................................................... 0.267 0.0655 

Monitoring .................................................................................................................................................... — 0.0269 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this action are 

shown in Table 3 of this preamble: 

TABLE 3— NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION

Category NAICS Code a b Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ................................................................. 327120 Brick, structural clay, and extruded tile manufacturing facilities (BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP); and ceramic wall and floor tile manufacturing facilities (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). 

327110 Vitreous plumbing fixtures (sanitaryware) manufacturing facilities (Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). 

Federal government ............................................. .............................. Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ................................ .............................. Not affected. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

b Refractories manufacturing is not included in the source categories affected by this action. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility, company, 

business, organization, etc., is regulated 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.8385 

of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP) or 40 CFR 63.8535 of subpart 

KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP). If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, contact either the 

delegated authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative as 

listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 

(General Provisions). 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the Internet through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN) Web site, a forum for information 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this action at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/

brickpg.html. Following publication in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version of the final 

rule and key technical documents at this 

same Web site. 

D. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of this final action is 

available only by filing a petition for 

review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by December 28, 2015. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements established by these final 

rules may not be challenged separately 

in any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce the 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

us to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

EPA WJC North Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, with a copy to both the 

person(s) listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

and the Associate General Counsel for 

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 

of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65473 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for the 

final rule? 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to set emissions standards for 

HAP emitted by sources in each source 

category and subcategory listed under 

section 112(c). The MACT standards for 

existing sources must be at least as 

stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information) or the best 

performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources 

(CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This 

level of minimum stringency is called 

the MACT floor. For new sources, 

MACT standards must be at least as 

stringent as the control level achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The 

EPA also must consider more stringent 

‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ control options. 

When considering beyond-the-floor 

options, the EPA must not only consider 

the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of HAP, but must also take 

into account costs, energy and nonair 

environmental impacts when doing so. 

B. What actions preceded this final rule? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the 

EPA was originally required to 

promulgate standards for the BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source categories by 

November 2000. The agency initially 

promulgated standards for these 

categories in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 

(May 16, 2003). Those standards were 

challenged and subsequently vacated by 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007. 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 

876 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra 

Club filed suit in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit under CAA section 

304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a 

continuing mandatory duty to 

promulgate standards for these 

categories under CAA section 112 based 

on the 2000 deadline under CAA 

section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged 

that claim in a motion to dismiss, 

arguing that the mandatory duty to act 

by the 2000 deadline was satisfied by 

the 2003 rule and that the 2007 vacatur 

of the 2003 rule did not recreate the 

statutory duty to act by the 2000 

deadline. Ultimately, the Court found 

that the vacatur of the 2003 rule 

recreated the mandatory duty to set 

standards by 2000 and held that Sierra 

Club’s claims could continue. See Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. 

2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then 

negotiated a consent decree to settle the 

litigation and establish proposal and 

promulgation deadlines for establishing 

standards for these categories. 

Following the 2007 vacatur of the 

2003 rule, the EPA began efforts to 

collect additional data to support new 

standards for the BSCP and clay 

ceramics industries. The EPA conducted 

an initial information collection effort in 

2008 to update information on the 

inventory of affected units, hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the 2008 EPA survey.’’ 

The EPA conducted a second 

information collection effort in 2010 to 

obtain additional emissions data and 

information on each facility’s startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 

procedures, hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 

2010 EPA survey.’’ The information 

collected as part of these surveys, and 

not claimed as CBI by respondents, is 

available in Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291. In addition, the dockets A– 

99–30 and OAR–2002–0054 are 

incorporated by reference for BSCP. The 

dockets A–2000–48, OAR–2002–0055, 

and EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0424 are 

incorporated by reference for clay 

ceramics. 

On December 18, 2014, the EPA 

proposed NESHAP for BSCP 

Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing. See 79 FR 

75622 (December 18, 2014). In response 

to a request from industry, the EPA 

extended the public comment period for 

the proposed action from February 17, 

2015, to March 19, 2015. See 79 FR 

78768 (December 31, 2014). In this 

action, the EPA is finalizing the rule. 

C. What are the health effects of 

pollutants emitted from the BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source categories? 

The final rule protects air quality and 

promotes the public health by reducing 

emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP 

and clay ceramics kilns. Emissions data 

collected during development of the 

final rule show that acid gases such as 

HF, HCl, and Cl2 represent the 

predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and 

clay ceramics kilns, accounting for 99.3 

percent of the total HAP emissions. 

These kilns also emit lesser amounts of 

other HAP compounds such as HAP 

metals and dioxins/furans, accounting 

for about 0.7 percent of total HAP 

emissions. The HAP metals emitted 

include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, Hg, nickel and selenium. 

Exposure to these HAP, depending on 

exposure duration and levels of 

exposures, can be associated with a 

variety of adverse health effects. These 

adverse health effects could include 

chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation 

of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, 

effects on the central nervous system 

and damage to the kidneys) and acute 

health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and 

congestion, alimentary effects such as 

nausea and vomiting, and effects on the 

kidney and central nervous system). We 

have classified two of the HAP as 

human carcinogens (arsenic and 

chromium VI) and four as probable 

human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, 

dioxins/furans and nickel). 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

The following sections summarize the 

final requirements for the BSCP 

Manufacturing source category and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source 

category. Section IV of this preamble 

summarizes the major changes since 

proposal. 

A. What are the final rule requirements 

for BSCP Manufacturing? 

1. What source category is affected by 

the final rule? 

The final NESHAP for BSCP 

Manufacturing applies to BSCP 

manufacturing facilities that are located 

at or are part of a major source 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. What are the affected sources? 

The affected sources, which are the 

portions of each source in the category 

for which we are setting standards, are 

(1) all tunnel kilns at a BSCP 

manufacturing facility and (2) each 

periodic kiln. For purposes of the final 

BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, tunnel 

kilns are defined to include any type of 

continuous kiln used at BSCP 

manufacturing facilities, including 

roller kilns. 

Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas 

or other fuels, including sawdust. 

Sawdust firing typically involves the 

use of a sawdust dryer because sawdust 

typically is purchased wet and needs to 

be dried before it can be used as fuel. 

Consequently, some sawdust-fired 

tunnel kilns have two process streams, 

including (1) a process stream that 

exhausts directly to the atmosphere or 

to an air pollution control device 

(APCD), and (2) a process stream in 

which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a 

sawdust dryer where it is used to dry 

sawdust before being emitted to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

atmosphere. Both process streams are 

subject to the requirements of the final 

BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. 

The following BSCP process units are 

not subject to the requirements of the 

final rule: (1) Kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products, (2) raw 

material processing and handling, and 

(3) dryers. Sources regulated under the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 

or the Refractories Manufacturing 

NESHAP are not subject to the 

requirements of the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP. 

3. Does the final rule apply to me? 

This final BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP applies to owners or operators 

of an affected source at a major source 

meeting the requirements discussed 

previously in this preamble. A major 

source of HAP emissions is any 

stationary source or group of stationary 

sources located within a contiguous area 

and under common control that emits or 

has the potential to emit, considering 

controls, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more 

of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. 

4. What emission limitations and work 

practice standards must I meet? 

Emission limitations. We are 

providing a choice of emission limits for 

total non-Hg HAP metals and Hg for 

new and existing tunnel kilns in two 

subcategories based on kiln size. In this 

final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, a 

large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or 

existing tunnel kiln with a design 

capacity of 10 tons per hour (tph) or 

greater, and a small tunnel kiln is 

defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln 

with a design capacity of less than 10 

tph. The options for total non-Hg HAP 

metals include total non-Hg HAP metals 

limits in units of pounds per hour (lb/ 

hr) and options for limiting PM as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals in 

units of pounds per ton (lb/ton) or 

grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/ 

dscf) at 17-percent oxygen (O2). The 

options for Hg include emission limits 

in units of lb/ton, lb/hr or micrograms 

per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) 

at 17-percent O2. We are also issuing an 

emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all 

existing and new tunnel kilns at the 

facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl 

and Cl2. The emission limits for acid 

gases, Hg, and non-Hg HAP metals are 

presented in Table 4 of this preamble. 

TABLE 4—ACID GASES, TOTAL NON-MERCURY HAP METALS AND MERCURY EMISSION LIMITS FOR BRICK AND

STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS TUNNEL KILNS

Subcategory Acid gases Total non-Hg HAP metals Hg 

Limits for existing sources 

Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) .......... — 0.036 lb/ton PM OR 0.0029 gr/

dscf PM at 17-percent O2 OR 

0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for each existing tunnel kiln 

at facility.

4.1 E–05 lb/ton OR 5.5 E–04 lb/hr 

OR 7.7 μg/dscm at 17- percent 

O2 for each existing large tunnel kiln at facility 

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) .......... — 0.37 lb/ton PM OR 0.0021 gr/dscf 

PM at 17-percent O2 OR 0.11 

lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for 

each existing tunnel kiln at facility.

3.3 E–04 lb/ton OR 0.0019 lb/hr 

OR 91 μg/dscm at 17- percent 

O2 for each existing small tunnel kiln at facility 

All tunnel kilns ................................ 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent for collection of all tunnel kilns at facility.— — 

Limits for new sources 

Large tunnel kilns (≥ 10 tph) .......... — 0.018 lb/ton PM OR 0.0014 gr/

dscf PM at 17-percent O2 OR 

0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals for each new tunnel kiln at 

facility.

2.8 E–05 lb/ton OR 3.4 E–04 lb/hr 

OR 6.2 μg/dscm at 17- percent 

O2 for each new large tunnel 

kiln at facility 

Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph) .......... — 0.030 lb/ton PM OR 0.0021 gr/

dscf PM at 17-percent O2 OR 

0.11 lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals 

for each new tunnel kiln at facility.

3.3 E–04 lb/ton OR 0.0019 lb/hr 

OR 91 μg/dscm at 17- percent 

O2 for each new small tunnel 

kiln at facility 

All tunnel kilns ................................ 57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent for collection of all tunnel kilns at facility.— — 

Work practice standards. We are 

issuing work practice standards for 

BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP 

emission limits. The work practice 

standards require developing and using 

a designed firing time and temperature 

cycle for each periodic kiln; labeling 

each periodic kiln with the maximum 

load (in tons) of product that can be 

fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; documenting the total tonnage 

placed in the kiln for each load to 

ensure that it is not greater than the 

maximum load; developing and 

implementing maintenance procedures 

for each kiln that specify the frequency 

of inspection and maintenance; and 

developing and maintaining records for 

each periodic kiln, including logs to 

document the proper operation and 

maintenance procedures of the periodic 

kilns. 

We are also issuing work practice 

standards for BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu 

of dioxin/furan emission limits. The 

work practice standards require 

maintaining and inspecting the burners 

and associated combustion controls (as 

applicable); tuning the specific burner 

type to optimize combustion; keeping 

records of each burner tune-up; and 

submitting a report for each tune-up 

conducted. As discussed in section 

III.C.1.a of this preamble, we are also 

issuing work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65475 

5. What are the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

We are requiring that owners or 

operators of all affected sources subject 

to emission limits conduct an initial 

performance test using specified EPA 

test methods to demonstrate initial 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits. A performance test must be 

conducted before renewing the facility’s 

40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at 

least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test, as well as when an 

operating limit parameter value is being 

revised. 

Under the final BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP, the owner or operator is 

required to measure emissions of HF, 

HCl, Cl2, Hg and PM (or non-Hg HAP 

metals). We are requiring that the owner 

or operator measure HF, HCl and Cl2

using one of the following methods: 

• EPA Method 26A, ‘‘Determination 

of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen 

Emissions from Stationary SourcesIsokinetic Method,’’ 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8; 

• EPA Method 26, ‘‘Determination of 

Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from 

Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8, when no acid particulate 

(e.g., HF, HCl or Cl2 dissolved in water 

droplets emitted by sources controlled 

by a wet scrubber) is present; 

• EPA Method 320, ‘‘Measurement of 

Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic 

Emission by Extractive FTIR’’ 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, provided the test 

follows the analyte spiking procedures 

of section 13 of Method 320, unless the 

owner or operator can demonstrate that 

the complete spiking procedure has 

been conducted at a similar source; or 

• Any other alternative method that 

has been approved by the Administrator 

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions. 

Following the performance test, the 

owner or operator must calculate the 

HCl-equivalent for the kiln using 

Equation 2 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(i). If 

there are multiple kilns at a facility, the 

owner or operator must sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using Equation 

3 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the 

total facility HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the HBEL for acid 

gases. 

As noted above, with respect to nonHg HAP metals, the owner or operator 

of a source can choose to meet either a 

non-Hg HAP metals limit or one of two 

alternative PM limits. If the owner or 

operator chooses to comply with one of 

the two PM emission limits rather than 

the non-Hg HAP metals limit, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

measure PM emissions using one of the 

following methods: 

• EPA Method 5, ‘‘Determination of 

Particulate Emissions from Stationary 

Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3; 

• EPA Method 29, ‘‘Determination of 

Metals Emissions From Stationary 

Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

8; or 

• Any other alternative method that 

has been approved by the Administrator 

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions. 

If the owner or operator chooses to 

comply with the non-Hg HAP metals 

emission limit instead of one of the PM 

emission limits, the owner or operator 

must measure non-Hg HAP metals 

emissions using EPA Method 29 cited 

above or any other alternative method 

that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of 

the General Provisions. The owner or 

operator may also use Method 29 or any 

other approved alternative method to 

measure Hg emissions. 

The following paragraphs discuss the 

initial compliance requirements. Prior 

to the initial performance test, the 

owner or operator is required to install 

the continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) equipment (as discussed 

in section III.A.6 of this preamble) to be 

used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits. 

During the initial test, the owner or 

operator must use the CPMS to establish 

site-specific operating parameter values 

that represent the operating limits. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

ensure that lime in the feed hopper or 

silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at 

all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test and record the feeder 

setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) for the three test runs. If the lime 

feed rate varies, the owner or operator 

is required to determine the average 

feed rate from the three test runs. The 

average of the three test runs establishes 

the minimum site-specific feed rate 

operating limit. If there are different 

average feed rate values during the PM/ 

non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2

tests, the highest of the average values 

becomes the site-specific operating 

limit. If a BLD system is present, the 

owner or operator is required to submit 

analyses and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for BLD 

systems. 

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry 

sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD 

system, we are requiring that the owner 

or operator submit analyses and 

supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for BLD 

systems. 

For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), 

we are requiring that the owner or 

operator continuously measure the 

pressure drop across the DLA during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and 

determine the 3-hour block average 

pressure drop. The average of the three 

test runs establishes the minimum sitespecific pressure drop operating limit. 

Alternatively, the owner or operator 

may continuously monitor the bypass 

stack damper position at least once 

every 15 minutes during the 

performance test. The owner or operator 

also must maintain an adequate amount 

of limestone in the limestone hopper, 

storage bin (located at the top of the 

DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, 

the owner or operator is required to 

establish the limestone feeder setting 

(on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 

week prior to the performance test and 

maintain the feeder setting for the 1- 

week period that precedes the 

performance test and during the 

performance test. Finally, the owner or 

operator must document the source and 

grade of the limestone used during the 

performance test. 

For a wet scrubber, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator continuously 

measure the scrubber liquid pH during 

the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and 

the scrubber liquid flow rate during 

both the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests. For each 

wet scrubber parameter, the owner or 

operator is required to determine and 

record the average values for the three 

test runs and the 3-hour block average 

value. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific 

liquid pH and liquid flow rate operating 

limits. If different average wet scrubber 

liquid flow rate values are measured 

during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and 

HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the 

average values become the site-specific 

operating limit. 

For an activated carbon injection 

(ACI) system, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator measure the activated 

carbon flow rate during the Hg 

performance test and determine the 3- 

hour block average flow rate. The 

average of the three test runs establishes 

the minimum site-specific activated 

carbon flow rate operating limit. 

For a source with no APCD installed, 

we are requiring that the owner or 

operator calculate the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent using Equation 

4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). The owner 

or operator must use the results from the 

performance test to determine the 

emissions at the maximum possible 

process rate. For example, if the design 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

capacity of the kiln is 10 tph and the 

production rate during the performance 

test was 9 tph, then the test results 

represent 90 percent of the maximum 

potential emissions. If there are multiple 

kilns at a facility, the owner or operator 

must sum the maximum potential HClequivalent for each kiln to get the total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent and compare this value to 

the HBEL for acid gases. If the total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent is greater than the HBEL, we 

are requiring that the owner or operator 

determine the maximum process rate for 

which the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent remains at or 

below the HBEL. If there are multiple 

kilns, the owner or operator must 

determine one or more combinations of 

maximum process rates that result in a 

total facility maximum potential HClequivalent that remains at or below the 

HBEL. The maximum process rate(s) 

becomes the operating limit(s) for 

process rate. 

6. What are the continuous compliance 

requirements? 

The final BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP requires that the owner or 

operator demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission 

limitation that applies. The owner or 

operator must follow the requirements 

in the operation, maintenance and 

monitoring (OM&M) plan and document 

conformance with the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator must also operate a 

CPMS to monitor the operating 

parameters established during the initial 

performance test as described in the 

following paragraphs. The CPMS must 

collect data at least every 15 minutes, 

including at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 

percent if there are more than four data 

values per hour) per hour to have a 

valid hour of data. The owner or 

operator must operate the CPMS at all 

times when the process is operating. 

The owner or operator must also 

conduct proper maintenance of the 

CPMS (including inspections, 

calibrations and validation checks) and 

maintain an inventory of necessary parts 

for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using 

the recorded readings, the owner or 

operator must calculate and record the 

3-hour block average values of each 

operating parameter. To calculate the 

average for each 3-hour averaging 

period, the owner or operator must have 

at least 75 percent of the recorded 

readings for that period. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

demonstrate compliance with the acid 

gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL by maintaining 

free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or 

silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime 

is not flowing freely, according to load 

cell output, carrier gas/lime flow 

indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 

measurement system or other system, 

the owner or operator must promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions 

according to the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator must also maintain 

the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) at or above the level 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test and record the feeder 

setting once each shift. 

The final rule provides the option to 

use either a BLD system or VE 

monitoring to demonstrate parametric 

compliance. 

For the option of a BLD system, we 

are requiring that the owner or operator 

initiate corrective action within 1 hour 

of a BLD system alarm and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan. The owner or operator 

must also operate and maintain the FF 

such that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. In calculating this 

operating time fraction, the owner or 

operator must not count any alarm time 

if inspection of the FF demonstrates that 

no corrective action is required. If 

corrective action is required, the owner 

or operator must count each alarm as a 

minimum of 1 hour. If corrective action 

is initiated more than 1 hour after an 

alarm, the owner or operator must count 

as alarm time the actual amount of time 

taken to initiate corrective action. 

For the option of monitoring VE, we 

are requiring that if VE are observed 

during any daily test conducted using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, the owner or operator must 

promptly conduct an opacity test, 

according to the procedures of Method 

9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4. If 

opacity greater than 10 percent if 

observed, the owner or operator must 

initiate and complete corrective actions 

according to the OM&M plan. If no VE 

are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

Method 22 tests or no opacity greater 

than 10 percent is observed during any 

of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack, 

the owner or operator may decrease the 

frequency of Method 22 testing from 

daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE 

are observed during any weekly test and 

opacity greater than 10 percent is 

observed in the subsequent Method 9 

test, the owner or operator must 

promptly initiate and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan, resume testing of that kiln 

stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, on a daily basis, 

and maintain that schedule until no VE 

are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

tests or no opacity greater than 10 

percent is observed during any of the 

Method 9 tests, at which time the owner 

or operator may again decrease the 

frequency of Method 22 testing to a 

weekly basis. 

If greater than 10 percent opacity is 

observed during any test conducted 

using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4, the owner or operator 

must report these deviations by 

following the requirements in 40 CFR 

63.8485. 

In lieu of conducting VE tests as 

described above, the owner or operator 

may conduct a PM test at least once 

every year following the initial 

performance test, according to the 

procedures of Method 5 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3, and the provisions of 

40 CFR 63.8445(e) and (f)(1). 

For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator use a BLD 

system or monitor VE as described 

above to demonstrate parametric 

compliance. 

For a DLA, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/ 

Cl2) HBEL by collecting and recording 

data documenting the DLA pressure 

drop and reducing the data to 3-hour 

block averages. The owner or operator 

must maintain the average pressure 

drop across the DLA for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average 

pressure drop established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. 

Alternatively, the owner or operator 

may continuously monitor the bypass 

stack damper position at least once 

every 15 minutes during normal kiln 

operation. Any period in which the 

bypass damper is opened allowing the 

kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA 

triggers corrective actions according to 

the OM&M plan. The owner or operator 

also must verify that the limestone 

hopper, storage bin (located at the top 

of the DLA) and DLA contain an 

adequate amount of limestone by 

performing a daily visual check of the 

limestone hopper and the storage bin. A 

daily visual check could include one of 

the following: (1) Conducting a physical 

check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual 

access point, such as a window, on the 

side of the hopper; (3) installing a 

camera in the hopper that provides 

continuous feed to a video monitor in 

the control room; or (4) confirming that 

load level indicators in the hopper are 

not indicating the need for additional 

limestone. If the hopper or storage bin 

does not contain adequate limestone, 

the owner or operator must promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65477 

according to the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator also must record the 

limestone feeder setting daily (on a per 

ton of fired product basis) to verify that 

the feeder setting is being maintained at 

or above the level established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. The 

owner or operator also must use the 

same grade of limestone from the same 

source as was used during the HF/HCl/ 

Cl2 performance test and maintain 

records of the source and type of 

limestone. Finally, the owner or 

operator must monitor VE, as described 

in the previous paragraph. 

For a wet scrubber, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator continuously 

maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid 

flow rate at or above the minimum 

values established during the applicable 

performance test. Maintaining the 3- 

hour block average for scrubber liquid 

pH at or above the minimum value 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test demonstrates 

compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/ 

Cl2) HBEL. Maintaining the 3-hour block 

average for scrubber liquid flow rate at 

or above the lowest minimum value 

established during the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

tests demonstrates compliance with all 

applicable emission limits by showing 

that the scrubber is in proper working 

order. 

For an ACI system, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the Hg emission limit 

by continuously monitoring the 

activated carbon flow rate and 

maintaining it at or above the operating 

limit established during the Hg 

performance test. 

For sources with no APCD, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

monitor VE as described above to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM/

non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In 

addition, if the last calculated total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent was not at or below the 

HBEL for acid gases, then we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

collect and record data documenting the 

process rate of the kiln and reduce the 

data to 3-hour block averages. The 

owner or operator must maintain the 

kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln 

process rate operating limit(s) that 

enables the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or 

below the HBEL. 

7. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

All new and existing sources are 

required to comply with certain 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

identified in Table 10 of subpart JJJJJ. 

The General Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

Each owner or operator is required to 

submit a notification of compliance 

status report, as required by 40 CFR 

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. The 

final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

requires the owner or operator to 

include in the notification of 

compliance status report certifications 

of compliance with rule requirements. 

Semiannual compliance reports, as 

required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of 

subpart A, are also required for each 

semiannual reporting period. 

The final BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP requires records to 

demonstrate compliance with each 

emission limit and work practice 

standard. These recordkeeping 

requirements are specified directly in 

the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 

and are identified in Table 8 of subpart 

JJJJJ. 

Specifically, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator keep the following 

records: 

• All reports and notifications 

submitted to comply with the final 

BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. 

• Records of performance tests. 

• Records relating to APCD 

maintenance and documentation of 

approved routine control device 

maintenance. 

• Continuous monitoring data as 

required in the final BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP. 

• Records of BLD system alarms and 

corrective actions taken. 

• Records of each instance in which 

the owner or operator did not meet each 

emission limit (i.e., deviations from 

operating limits). 

• Records of production rates. 

• Records of approved alternative 

monitoring or testing procedures. 

• Records of maintenance and 

inspections performed on the APCD. 

• Current copies of the OM&M plan 

and records documenting conformance. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the periodic 

kiln work practice standard. 

• Records of burner tune-ups used to 

comply with the dioxin/furan work 

practice standard for tunnel kilns. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the startup 

and shutdown work practice standards. 

• Records of each malfunction and 

the corrective action taken. 

• Records of parameters and 

procedures followed for work practice 

standards. 

We are also requiring that the owner 

or operator submit the following reports 

and notifications: 

• Notifications required by the 

General Provisions. 

• Initial Notification no later than 120 

calendar days after the affected source 

becomes subject to this subpart. 

• Notification of Intent to conduct 

performance tests and/or other 

compliance demonstration at least 60 

calendar days before the performance 

test and/or other compliance 

demonstration is scheduled. 

• Notification of Compliance Status 

60 calendar days following completion 

of a compliance demonstration that 

includes a performance test. 

• Notification of Compliance Status 

30 calendar days following completion 

of a compliance demonstration that does 

not include a performance test (i.e., 

compliance demonstrations for the work 

practice standards). 

• Compliance reports semi-annually, 

including a report of the most recent 

burner tune-up conducted to comply 

with the dioxin/furan work practice 

standard and a report of each 

malfunction resulting in an exceedance 

and the corrective action taken. 

• Results of each performance test 

within 60 calendar days of completing 

the test, submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software for 

data collected using supported test 

methods (see section III.E of this 

preamble for more information). 

B. What are the final rule requirements 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing? 

1. What source category is affected by 

the final rule? 

This final rule for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing applies to clay ceramics 

manufacturing facilities that are located 

at or are part of a major source of HAP 

emissions. The Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source category includes 

those facilities that manufacture pressed 

floor tile, pressed wall tile and other 

pressed tile; or sanitaryware (e.g., toilets 

and sinks). 

2. What are the affected sources? 

The affected sources, which are the 

portions of each source in the category 

for which we are setting standards, are 

(1) each ceramic tile roller kiln; (2) each 

floor tile press dryer; (3) each ceramic 

tile spray dryer; (4) each ceramic tile 

glaze line using glaze spraying; (5) each 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln; (6) each 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and (7) each 

sanitaryware glaze spray booth. 

The following clay ceramics process 

units are not subject to the requirements 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of the final rule: (1) Tunnel, roller or 

shuttle kilns that are used exclusively 

for refiring; (2) tunnel, roller or shuttle 

kilns that are used exclusively for 

setting glazes on previously fired 

products; (3) glaze spray operations that 

are used exclusively with those kilns 

listed in items 1 and 2 above; (4) process 

units listed in items 1 through 3 above 

that are permitted to, but do not, process 

first-fire ware, until such time as they 

begin to process first-fire ware; (5) refire 

shuttle kilns that fire no more than four 

batches per year of first-fire ware; (6) 

glaze spray operations that on average 

use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 

(weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight 

basis) per spray booth over an entire 

calendar year; (7) raw material 

processing and handling; (8) wall tile 

press dryers; and (9) sanitaryware ware 

dryers. Sources regulated under the 

BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP or the 

Refractories Manufacturing NESHAP are 

not subject to the requirements of the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 

3. Does the final rule apply to me? 

This final Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP applies to 

owners or operators of an affected 

source at a major source meeting the 

requirements discussed previously in 

this preamble. A major source of HAP 

emissions is any stationary source or 

group of stationary sources located 

within a contiguous area and under 

common control that emits or has the 

potential to emit, considering controls, 

10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or 

more of any combination of HAP. 

4. What emission limitations and work 

practice standards must I meet? 

Emission limitations. We are issuing 

emission limits for PM as a surrogate for 

total non-Hg HAP metals (in units of lb/ 

ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile 

roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

and ceramic tile and sanitaryware 

glazing operations. We are issuing 

emission limits for Hg (lb/ton) for all 

new and existing ceramic tile roller 

kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns. We are 

issuing emission limits for dioxin/furan 

(nanograms of 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic 

equivalents (TEQ) per kilogram (ng/kg)) 

for all new and existing ceramic tile 

roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns, 

floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile 

spray dryers. We are also issuing an 

emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all 

existing and new roller and tunnel kilns 

at each facility to reduce the acid gases 

HF and HCl. The emission limits are 

presented in Table 5 of this preamble. 

TABLE 5—EMISSION LIMITS FOR CLAY CERAMICS SOURCES

Subcategory 

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent) aHg (lb/ton) PM b (lb/ton) Dioxins/furans 

(ng/kg) c

Limits for existing sources 

Floor tile roller kilns .......................................................................................... 140 1.3 E–04 0.13 2.8 

Floor tile press dryers ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.024 

Floor tile spray dryers ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 19 

Wall tile roller kilns ........................................................................................... 140 2.1 E–04 0.37 0.22 

Wall tile spray dryers ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.058 

Tile glaze lines ................................................................................................. ........................ 1.6 E–04 1.9 ........................

First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns ................................................................... 140 2.6 E–04 0.34 3.3 

Sanitaryware manual glaze application ........................................................... ........................ ........................ 35 ........................

Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application ............................................... ........................ ........................ 13 ........................

Sanitaryware robot glaze application .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 8.9 ........................

Limits for new sources 

Floor tile roller kilns .......................................................................................... 140 3.9 E–05 0.037 1.3 

Floor tile press dryers ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.024 

Floor tile spray dryers ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.071 

Wall tile roller kilns ........................................................................................... 140 2.1 E–04 0.37 0.22 

Wall tile spray dryers ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.058 

Tile glaze lines ................................................................................................. ........................ 1.6 E–04 0.61 ........................

First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns ................................................................... 140 1.3 E–04 0.095 0.99 

Sanitaryware manual glaze application ........................................................... ........................ ........................ 3.9 ........................

Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application ............................................... ........................ ........................ 3.2 ........................

Sanitaryware robot glaze application .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 2.3 ........................

a Limit applies to collection of all kilns at facility. b PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. c ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram. 

Work practice standards. We are 

issuing work practice standards in lieu 

of emission limits for acid gases (HF and 

HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work 

practice standards require using natural 

gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except 

during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or supply interruption; 

developing and using a designed firing 

time and temperature cycle for each 

shuttle kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln 

with the maximum load (in tons) of 

throughput (greenware) that can be fired 

in the kiln during a single firing cycle; 

documenting the total tonnage of 

greenware placed in the kiln for each 

load to ensure that it is not greater than 

the maximum load; developing and 

implementing maintenance procedures 

for each kiln that specify the frequency 

of inspection and maintenance; and 

developing and maintaining records for 

each shuttle kiln, including logs to 

document the proper operation and 

maintenance procedures of the shuttle 

kilns. As discussed in section III.C.1.b of 

this preamble, we are also issuing work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown. 

5. What are the testing and initial 

compliance requirements? 

We are requiring that owners or 

operators of all affected sources subject 

to emission limits conduct an initial 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65479 

performance test using specified EPA 

test methods to demonstrate initial 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits. A performance test must be 

conducted before renewing the facility’s 

40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at 

least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test, as well as when an 

operating limit parameter value is being 

revised. 

Under the final Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP, the owner or 

operator is required to measure 

emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and 

dioxins/furans. The owner or operator 

must measure HF and HCl from ceramic 

tile roller kilns and sanitaryware firstfire tunnel kilns using one of the 

following methods: 

• EPA Method 26A, ‘‘Determination 

of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen 

Emissions from Stationary SourcesIsokinetic Method,’’ 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8; 

• EPA Method 26, ‘‘Determination of 

Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from 

Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8, when no acid particulate 

(e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water 

droplets emitted by sources controlled 

by a wet scrubber) is present; 

• EPA Method 320, ‘‘Measurement of 

Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic 

Emission by Extractive FTIR’’ 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, provided the test 

follows the analyte spiking procedures 

of section 13 of Method 320, unless the 

owner or operator can demonstrate that 

the complete spiking procedure has 

been conducted at a similar source; or 

• Any other alternative method that 

has been approved by the Administrator 

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions. 

Following the performance test, the 

owner or operator must calculate the 

HCl-equivalent for the kiln using 

Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(i). If 

there are multiple kilns at a facility, the 

owner or operator must sum the HClequivalent for each kiln using Equation 

5 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the 

total facility HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the HBEL. 

We are requiring that the owner or 

operator measure PM emissions from 

ceramic tile roller kilns and 

sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using 

one of the following methods: 

• EPA Method 5, ‘‘Determination of 

Particulate Emissions from Stationary 

Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3; 

• EPA Method 29, ‘‘Determination of 

Metals Emissions From Stationary 

Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

8; or 

• Any other alternative method that 

has been approved by the Administrator 

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions. 

Method 29 or any other approved 

alternative method may also be used to 

measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile 

roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and 

sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns. 

We are requiring that the owner or 

operator measure PM emissions from 

ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze 

spray booths using EPA Method 5 or 

any other alternative method that has 

been approved by the Administrator 

under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions. 

We are also requiring that the owner 

or operator measure dioxin/furan 

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns 

and spray dryers, floor tile press dryers 

and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns 

using EPA Method 23, ‘‘Determination 

of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 

and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

From Stationary Sources,’’ 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7 or any other 

alternative method that has been 

approved by the Administrator under 40 

CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions. 

The following paragraphs discuss the 

initial compliance requirements. Prior 

to the initial performance test, the 

owner or operator is required to install 

the CPMS equipment (as discussed in 

section III.B.6 of this preamble) to be 

used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits. 

During the initial test, the owner or 

operator must use the CPMS to establish 

site-specific operating parameter values 

that represent the operating limits. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

ensure that lime in the feed hopper or 

silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at 

all times during the HF/HCl 

performance test and record the feeder 

setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) for the three test runs. If the lime 

feed rate varies, the owner or operator 

is required to determine the average 

feed rate from the three test runs. The 

average of the three test runs establishes 

the minimum site-specific feed rate 

operating limit. If there are different 

average feed rate values during the PM 

and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the 

average values becomes the site-specific 

operating limit. If a BLD system is 

present, the owner or operator is 

required to submit analyses and 

supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for BLD 

systems. 

For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry 

sorbent injection or DLS) and a BLD 

system, we are requiring that the owner 

or operator submit analyses and 

supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for BLD 

systems. 

For a wet scrubber, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator continuously 

measure the scrubber liquid pH during 

the HF/HCl performance test and the 

scrubber liquid flow rate during both 

the PM and HF/HCl performance tests. 

For each wet scrubber parameter, the 

owner or operator is required to 

determine and record the average values 

for the three test runs and the 3-hour 

block average value. The average of the 

three test runs establishes the minimum 

site-specific liquid pH and liquid flow 

rate operating limits. If different average 

wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are 

measured during the PM and HF/HCl 

tests, the highest of the average values 

become the site-specific operating 

limits. 

For an ACI system, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator measure the 

activated carbon flow rate during the Hg 

and dioxin/furan performance tests and 

determine the 3-hour block average flow 

rate. The average of the three test runs 

establishes the minimum site-specific 

activated carbon flow rate operating 

limit. If different average activated 

carbon flow rate values are measured 

during the Hg and dioxin/furan tests, 

the highest of the average values 

becomes the site-specific operating 

limit. 

If the owner or operator intends to 

comply with the dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

measure the stack temperature of the 

tunnel or roller kiln during the dioxin/ 

furan performance test. The highest 4- 

hour average stack temperature of the 

three test runs establishes the maximum 

site-specific operating limit. The owner 

or operator must also measure the 

operating temperatures of the ceramic 

tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer 

during the dioxin/furan performance 

test and determine the 3-hour block 

average temperature. The average of the 

three test runs establishes the sitespecific operating limit. 

For sources with no APCD installed, 

we are requiring that the owner or 

operator calculate the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent using Equation 

6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). The owner 

or operator must use the results from the 

performance test to determine the 

emissions at the maximum possible 

process rate. For example, if the design 

capacity of the tunnel or roller kiln is 10 

tph and the production rate during the 

performance test was 9 tph, then the test 

results represent 90 percent of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

maximum potential emissions. If there 

are multiple kilns at a facility, the 

owner or operator must sum the 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent for 

each kiln to get the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent and 

compare this value to the HBEL for acid 

gases. If the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent is greater than 

the HBEL, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator determine the 

maximum process rate for which the 

total facility maximum potential HClequivalent remains at or below the 

HBEL. If there are multiple kilns, the 

owner or operator must determine one 

or more combinations of maximum 

process rates that result in a total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent that 

remains at or below the HBEL. The 

maximum process rate(s) becomes the 

operating limit(s) for process rate. We 

are also requiring that the owner or 

operator measure the stack temperature 

of the tunnel or roller kiln during the 

dioxin/furan performance test. The 

highest 4-hour average stack 

temperature of the three test runs 

establishes the maximum site-specific 

operating limit. The owner or operator 

must also measure the operating 

temperatures of the ceramic tile spray 

dryer and floor tile press dryer during 

the dioxin/furan performance test and 

determine the 3-hour block average 

temperature. The average of the three 

test runs establishes the site-specific 

operating limit. 

6. What are the continuous compliance 

requirements? 

The final Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP requires that 

the owner or operator demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation that applies. The 

owner or operator must follow the 

requirements in the OM&M plan and 

document conformance with the OM&M 

plan. The owner or operator must also 

operate a CPMS to monitor the 

operating parameters established during 

the initial performance test as described 

in the following paragraphs. The CPMS 

must collect data at least every 15 

minutes, including at least three of four 

equally spaced data values (or at least 

75 percent if there are more than four 

data values per hour) per hour to have 

a valid hour of data. The owner or 

operator must operate the CPMS at all 

times when the process is operating. 

The owner or operator must also 

conduct proper maintenance of the 

CPMS, including inspections, 

calibrations and validation checks, and 

maintain an inventory of necessary parts 

for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using 

the recorded readings, the owner or 

operator must calculate and record the 

3-hour block average values of each 

operating parameter. To calculate the 

average for each 3-hour averaging 

period, the owner or operator must have 

at least 75 percent of the recorded 

readings for that period. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

demonstrate compliance with the acid 

gas (HF/HCl) HBEL by maintaining freeflowing lime in the feed hopper or silo 

and to the APCD at all times. If lime is 

found not to be free flowing via the 

output of a load cell, carrier gas/lime 

flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 

measurement system or other system, 

the owner or operator must promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions 

according to the OM&M plan. The 

owner or operator must also maintain 

the feeder setting (on a per ton of 

throughput basis) at or above the level 

established during the performance test 

and record the feeder setting once each 

shift. 

For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the final rule 

provides the option to use either a BLD 

system or VE monitoring to demonstrate 

parametric compliance. 

For the option of a BLD system, we 

are requiring that the owner or operator 

initiate corrective action within 1 hour 

of a BLD system alarm and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan. The owner or operator 

must also operate and maintain the FF 

such that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. In calculating this 

operating time fraction, if inspection of 

the FF demonstrates that no corrective 

action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. If corrective action is required, 

each alarm must be counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour and if corrective 

action is initiated more than 1 hour after 

an alarm, the alarm time must be 

counted as the actual amount of time 

taken to initiate corrective action. 

For the option of monitoring VE, we 

are requiring that the owner or operator 

perform daily, 15-minute VE 

observations in accordance with the 

procedures of EPA Method 22, ‘‘Visual 

Determination of Fugitive Emissions 

from Material Sources and Smoke 

Emissions from Flares,’’ 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. During the VE 

observations, the source must be 

operating under normal conditions. If 

VE are observed, the owner or operator 

must promptly initiate and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 

30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 

tests, the owner or operator may 

decrease the frequency of EPA Method 

22 testing from daily to weekly for that 

source. If VE are observed during any 

weekly test, the owner or operator must 

promptly initiate and complete 

corrective actions according to the 

OM&M plan and the owner or operator 

must resume EPA Method 22 testing of 

that source on a daily basis until no VE 

are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

tests, at which time the owner or 

operator may again decrease the 

frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to 

a weekly basis. 

For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator use a BLD 

system or monitor VE as described 

above to demonstrate parametric 

compliance. 

For a wet scrubber on a tunnel or 

roller kiln, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator continuously 

maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid 

flow rate at or above the minimum 

values established during the applicable 

performance test. Maintaining the 3- 

hour block average for scrubber liquid 

pH at or above the minimum values 

established during the HF/HCl 

performance test demonstrates 

compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) 

HBEL. Maintaining the 3-hour block 

average for scrubber liquid flow rate at 

or above the lowest minimum value 

established during the PM and HF/HCl 

performance tests demonstrates 

compliance with all applicable emission 

limits by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order. 

For an ACI system, we are requiring 

that the owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the Hg and dioxin/

furan emission limits by continuously 

monitoring the activated carbon flow 

rate and maintaining it at or above the 

lowest minimum value established 

during the Hg and dioxin/furan 

performance tests. 

If the owner or operator intends to 

comply with the dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system, we are 

requiring that the owner or operator 

demonstrate compliance by 

continuously monitoring the stack 

temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln 

and the operating temperature of the 

ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile 

press dryer and maintaining it at or 

below the highest 4-hour average 

temperature during the dioxin/furan 

performance test for the tunnel or roller 

kiln, at or above the average temperature 

during the dioxin/furan performance 

test for the ceramic tile spray dryer, and 

at or below the average temperature 

during the dioxin/furan performance 

test for the floor tile press dryer. 

For a wet scrubber on a spray glazing 

operation, we are requiring that the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65481 

owner or operator continuously 

maintain the 3-hour block averages for 

scrubber pressure drop and scrubber 

liquid flow rate at or above the 

minimum values established during the 

applicable performance test. 

Maintaining the 3-hour block average 

for scrubber pressure drop at or above 

the minimum value established during 

the PM performance test demonstrates 

compliance with the PM emission limit. 

Maintaining the 3-hour block average 

for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above 

the minimum value established during 

the PM performance test demonstrates 

compliance with the PM emission limit 

by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order. 

For a water curtain on a spray glazing 

operation, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emission limit 

by conducting a daily inspection to 

verify the presence of water flow to the 

wet control system, conducting weekly 

visual inspections of the system 

ductwork and control equipment for 

leaks and conducting annual 

inspections of the interior of the control 

equipment (if applicable) to determine 

the structural integrity and condition of 

the control equipment. 

For baffles on a spray glazing 

operation, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emission limit 

by conducting an annual visual 

inspection of the baffles to confirm the 

baffles are in place. 

For a source with no APCD, we are 

requiring that, to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emission limit, 

the owner or operator monitor VE as 

described above. We are also requiring 

that, to demonstrate compliance with 

the dioxin/furan emission limit, the 

owner or operator continuously monitor 

the stack temperature of the tunnel or 

roller kiln and operating temperature of 

the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor 

tile press dryer and maintain it at or 

below the highest 4-hour average stack 

temperature during the dioxin/furan 

performance test for the tunnel or roller 

kiln, at or above the average operating 

temperature during the dioxin/furan 

performance test for the ceramic tile 

spray dryer, and at or below the average 

operating temperature during the 

dioxin/furan performance test for the 

floor tile press dryer. In addition, if the 

last calculated total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent was not at or 

below the HBEL for acid gases, then we 

are requiring that the owner or operator 

collect and record data documenting the 

process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln 

and reduce the data to 3-hour block 

averages. The owner or operator must 

maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or 

below the kiln process rate operating 

limit(s) that enables the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent to 

remain at or below the HBEL. 

7. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

All new and existing sources are 

required to comply with certain 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

identified in Table 11 of subpart 

KKKKK. The General Provisions include 

specific requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

Each owner or operator is required to 

submit a notification of compliance 

status report, as required by 40 CFR 

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This 

final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP requires the owner or operator 

to include in the notification of 

compliance status report certifications 

of compliance with rule requirements. 

Semiannual compliance reports, as 

required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of 

subpart A, are also required for each 

semiannual reporting period. 

This final Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP requires 

records to demonstrate compliance with 

each emission limit and work practice 

standard. These recordkeeping 

requirements are specified directly in 

the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 

and are identified in Table 9 of subpart 

KKKKK. 

Specifically, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator must keep the 

following records: 

• All reports and notifications 

submitted to comply with this final Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 

• Records of performance tests. 

• Records relating to APCD 

maintenance and documentation of 

approved routine control device 

maintenance. 

• Continuous monitoring data as 

required in this final Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP. 

• Records of BLD system alarms and 

corrective actions taken. 

• Each instance in which the owner 

or operator did not meet each emission 

limit (i.e., deviations from operating 

limits). 

• Records of production rates. 

• Records of approved alternative 

monitoring or testing procedures. 

• Records of maintenance and 

inspections performed on the APCD. 

• Current copies of the OM&M plan 

and records documenting conformance. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the shuttle 

kiln work practice standard. 

• Logs of the information required to 

document compliance with the startup 

and shutdown work practice standards. 

• Records of each malfunction and 

the corrective action taken. 

• Records of parameters and 

procedures followed for work practice 

standards. 

We are also requiring that the owner 

or operator submit the following reports 

and notifications: 

• Notifications required by the 

General Provisions. 

• Initial Notification no later than 120 

calendar days after the affected source 

becomes subject to this subpart. 

• Notification of Intent to conduct 

performance tests and/or other 

compliance demonstration at least 60 

calendar days before the performance 

test and/or other compliance 

demonstration is scheduled. 

• Notification of Compliance Status 

60 calendar days following completion 

of a compliance demonstration that 

includes a performance test. 

• Notification of Compliance Status 

30 calendar days following completion 

of a compliance demonstration that does 

not include a performance test (i.e., 

compliance demonstration for the work 

practice standard). 

• Compliance reports semi-annually, 

including a report of each malfunction 

resulting in an exceedance and the 

corrective action taken. 

• Report of alternative fuel use within 

10 working days after terminating use of 

the alternative fuel. 

• Results of each performance test 

within 60 calendar days of completing 

the test, submitted to the EPA by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer via EPA-provided software for 

data collected using supported test 

methods (see section III.E of this 

preamble for more information). 

C. What are the requirements during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

the EPA has established standards in 

this rule that apply at all times. In 

establishing the standards in this rule, 

the EPA has taken into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the 

reasons explained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and in sections IV.A.4 

and IV.B.2 of this preamble, has 

established alternate standards for those 

periods. 

a. BSCP Manufacturing 

The EPA is issuing the work practice 

standards described in this paragraph 

for periods of startup and shutdown for 

BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first 

step, the owner or operator is required 

to determine the APCD minimum inlet 

temperature and the startup kiln car 

push rate of the product. For startup, the 

owner or operator is required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

at all times when the exhaust 

temperature is at or above the minimum 

inlet temperature. In addition, the 

owner or operator may not exceed the 

startup kiln car push rate until the kiln 

exhaust is vented to the APCD. For 

shutdown, the owner or operator is 

required to vent the exhaust from the 

kiln through the APCD until the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls below the 

APCD minimum inlet temperature. In 

addition, the kiln car push rate is to be 

steadily decreased to zero as the kiln 

cools. No additional loaded kiln cars 

may be introduced into the kiln once 

the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 

the APCD minimum inlet temperature. 

When the kiln exhaust is being vented 

through the APCD, the owner or 

operator is required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance 

requirements described in section 

III.A.6 of this preamble. 

The EPA is issuing similar work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns 

without an APCD as well. As a first step, 

the owner or operator is required to 

determine the product-specific kiln 

temperature profile and the startup kiln 

car push rate of the product. For startup, 

the startup kiln car push rate may not 

be exceeded until the kiln reaches the 

product-specific kiln temperature 

profile. For shutdown, the kiln car push 

rate is to be steadily decreased to zero 

as the kiln cools. No additional loaded 

kiln cars may be introduced into the 

kiln once the kiln falls below the 

product-specific kiln temperature 

profile. When the kiln production rate is 

greater than the startup kiln car push 

rate, the owner or operator is required 

to comply with the applicable 

continuous compliance requirements 

described in section III.A.6 of this 

preamble. 

b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

The EPA is issuing the work practice 

standards described in this paragraph 

for periods of startup and shutdown for 

ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press 

dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. 

As a first step, the owner or operator is 

required to determine the APCD 

minimum inlet temperature and the 

startup production rate of the product. 

For startup, the owner or operator is 

required to vent the exhaust from the 

kiln or dryer through the APCD at all 

times when the exhaust temperature is 

at or above the minimum inlet 

temperature. In addition, the owner or 

operator may not exceed the startup 

production rate of the product until the 

kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented 

through the APCD. For shutdown, the 

owner or operator is required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln or dryer through 

the APCD until the exhaust temperature 

falls below the APCD minimum inlet 

temperature. In addition, the production 

rate is to be steadily decreased to zero 

as the kiln or dryer cools. No additional 

throughput may be introduced to the 

kiln, press dryer and spray dryer once 

the exhaust temperature falls below the 

APCD minimum inlet temperature. 

When the exhaust is being vented 

through the APCD, the owner or 

operator is required to comply with the 

applicable continuous compliance 

requirements described in section III.B.6 

of this preamble. 

The EPA is also issuing work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, 

floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray 

dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

without an APCD. As a first step, the 

owner or operator is required to 

determine the product-specific kiln or 

dryer temperature profile and the 

startup production rate of the product. 

For startup, the startup production rate 

may not be exceeded until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature reaches the 

product-specific temperature profile. 

For shutdown, the production rate is to 

be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln 

or dryer cools. No additional throughput 

may be introduced to the kiln, press 

dryer and spray dryer once the kiln, 

press dryer or spray dryer falls below 

the product-specific temperature profile. 

When the kiln or dryer production rate 

is greater than the startup production 

rate, the owner or operator is required 

to comply with the applicable 

continuous compliance requirements 

described in section III.B.6 of this 

preamble. 

2. Periods of Malfunction 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they are 

by definition sudden, infrequent and 

not reasonably preventable failures of 

emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 

(Definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under section 112, emissions 

standards for new sources must be no 

less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ 

by the best controlled similar source 

and for existing sources generally must 

be no less stringent than the average 

emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the 

best performing 12 percent of sources in 

the category. There is nothing in CAA 

section 112 that directs the agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing sources when setting 

emission standards. As the DC Circuit 

has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. A malfunction should not be 

treated in the same manner as the type 

of variation in performance that occurs 

during routine operations of a source. A 

malfunction is a failure of the source to 

perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ 

and no statutory language compels the 

EPA to consider such events in setting 

section CAA 112 standards. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree, and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65483 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’’’) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an APCD with 99-percent 

removal goes off-line as a result of a 

malfunction (as might happen if, for 

example, the bags in a baghouse catch 

fire) and the emission unit is a steady 

state type unit that would take days to 

shut down, the source would go from 

99-percent control to zero control until 

the APCD was repaired. The source’s 

emissions during the malfunction 

would be 100 times higher than during 

normal operations. As a result, the 

emissions over a 4-day malfunction 

period would exceed the annual 

emissions of the source during normal 

operations. As this example illustrates, 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are not reflective of 

(and significantly less stringent than) 

levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. 

It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 

112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable 

and was not instead caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless operation. 

40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, section 112 

is reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. 

D. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing 

and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing are 

effective on December 28, 2015. 

If the initial startup of the affected 

source is after December 18, 2014, but 

before December 28, 2015, then the 

compliance date is no later than 

December 28, 2015. If the initial startup 

of the affected source is after December 

28, 2015, then the compliance date is 

immediately upon initial startup of the 

affected source. The compliance date for 

existing affected sources is no later than 

December 26, 2018. 

The initial performance test must be 

conducted within 180 calendar days 

after the compliance date specified in 40 

CFR 63.8395 for affected sources of 

BSCP manufacturing and 40 CFR 

63.8545 for affected sources of clay 

ceramics manufacturing, according to 

the provisions in 40 CFR 60.7(a)(2). The 

first of the 5-year repeat tests must be 

conducted no later than 5 years 

following the initial performance test, 

and thereafter within 5 years from the 

date of the previous performance test. 

The date to submit performance test 

data through the Electronic Reporting 

Tool (ERT) is within 60 calendar days 

after the date of completing each 

performance test. 

E. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

The EPA is requiring owners or 

operators of BSCP and clay ceramics 

facilities to submit electronic copies of 

certain required performance test 

reports through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). As stated in the proposed 

preamble, the EPA believes that the 

electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this rulemaking will 

increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability, 

will further assist in the protection of 

public health and the environment and 

will ultimately result in less burden on 

the regulated community. Electronic 

reporting can also eliminate paperbased, manual processes, thereby saving 

time and resources, simplifying data 

entry, eliminating redundancies, 

minimizing data reporting errors and 

providing data quickly and accurately to 

the affected facilities, air agencies, the 

EPA and the public. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

proposal, the EPA Web site that stores 

the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, 

will be easily accessible to everyone and 

will provide a user-friendly interface 

that any stakeholder could access. By 

making the records, data and reports 

addressed in this rulemaking readily 

available, the EPA, the regulated 

community and the public will benefit 

when the EPA conducts its CAArequired technology and risk-based 

reviews. As a result of having reports 

readily accessible, our ability to carry 

out comprehensive reviews will be 

increased and achieved within a shorter 

period of time. 

We anticipate fewer or less substantial 

information collection requests (ICRs) in 

conjunction with prospective CAArequired technology and risk-based 

reviews may be needed. We expect this 

to result in a decrease in time spent by 

industry to respond to data collection 

requests. We also expect the ICRs to 

contain less extensive stack testing 

provisions, as we will already have 

stack test data electronically. Reduced 

testing requirements would be a cost 

savings to industry. The EPA should 

also be able to conduct these required 

reviews more quickly. While the 

regulated community may benefit from 

a reduced burden of ICRs, the general 

public benefits from the agency’s ability 

to provide these required reviews more 

quickly, resulting in increased public 

health and environmental protection. 

Air agencies could benefit from more 

streamlined and automated review of 

the electronically submitted data. 

Having reports and associated data in 

electronic format will facilitate review 

through the use of software ‘‘search’’ 

options, as well as the downloading and 

analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. 

The ability to access and review air 

emission report information 

electronically will assist air agencies to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

more quickly and accurately determine 

compliance with the applicable 

regulations, potentially allowing a faster 

response to violations which could 

minimize harmful air emissions. This 

benefits both air agencies and the 

general public. 

For a more thorough discussion of 

electronic reporting required by this 

rule, see the discussion in the preamble 

of the proposal. In summary, in addition 

to supporting regulation development, 

control strategy development and other 

air pollution control activities, having 

an electronic database populated with 

performance test data will save 

industry, air agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while improving the quality of emission 

inventories, air quality regulations, and 

enhancing the public’s access to this 

important information. 

F. What materials are being 

incorporated by reference under 1 CFR 

part 51? 

In this final rule, the EPA is including 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is incorporating by 

reference the following documents 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

63.14: 

• ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued 

August 31, 1981), IBR approved for 

Table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and Table 4 to 

subpart KKKKK. To correct an earlier, 

inadvertent error that exists in the CFR, 

we are also adding back in the IBR 

approval for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ. 

• ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 

2010), Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

including Annexes A1 through A8, 

(Approved October 1, 2010), IBR 

approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart 

JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart 

KKKKK. 

• ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008), Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound 

and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), 

(Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved 

for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and 

Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK. 

• ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 

2009), Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and 

Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 

Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, 

IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to 

subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to 

subpart KKKKK. 

• EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, September 1997, 

IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.8450(e)(1), 

(9), and (10) and 40 CFR 63.8600(e)(1), 

(9), and (10). 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal and Rationale 

The following sections summarize the 

significant changes made to the 

proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP, including the rationale for 

those changes, to respond to public 

comments and to correct technical 

inconsistencies or editorial errors in the 

proposal. A detailed discussion of these 

and other public comments, as well as 

other changes not discussed in this 

section, can be found in the responseto-comments documents, available in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. 

All changes to the final rules, including 

the significant changes discussed in this 

section and all other changes not 

discussed in this section, can also be 

found in the redline comparison of the 

proposed and final regulatory text, 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291 for BSCP 

Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing. 

A. What are the significant changes 

since proposal for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP? 

1. Changes to the Data Set 

Following proposal, the EPA learned 

that two of the facilities in the inventory 

at proposal were closed and the kilns 

were demolished. In addition, the EPA 

learned that two of the synthetic area 

sources in the inventory at proposal 

were actually true area sources. These 

facilities were removed from the master 

inventory, and the test data from kilns 

at two of these facilities were also 

removed from the data set. The EPA 

learned that a new tunnel kiln had been 

constructed at a new facility, and that 

new facility was added to the inventory. 

The EPA also received additional HF, 

HCl, and PM test data for three kilns, 

which was added into the data set. 

In addition, the EPA examined the 

PM test data more closely and found 

that a number of the EPA Method 5 test 

runs had probe or filter temperatures 

outside of the range of acceptable 

values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the 

temperature should be maintained at 

248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (i.e., 

between 223 and 273 °F). Test runs with 

temperatures outside that range were 

removed from the data set. (See the 

memorandum ‘‘Test Data Used in BSCP 

Manufacturing Final Rule’’ in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for more 

information on this analysis.) 

Several public commenters stated that 

the concentration limits for PM and Hg 

should not be corrected to 7-percent O2

because BSCP kilns operate with a 

higher O2 content; one commenter 

suggested that the EPA use data 

corrected to 17- percent O2 instead. The 

EPA evaluated this comment and agrees 

that 17-percent O2 is more 

representative of BSCP kiln operations. 

Specifically, the EPA evaluated the O2

content of the run-by-run datasets of PM 

and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns and found 

that for the PM data set, the oxygen 

content ranged from 9.5 to 20.5 percent, 

with an average of 16.8 and a mode of 

17 when evaluating the run-by-run O2

values rounded to whole numbers. For 

the Hg data set, the oxygen content 

ranged from 13.1 to 19.5 percent, with 

an average of 17.2 and a mode of 17 

when evaluating the run-by-run O2

values rounded to whole numbers. The 

EPA agrees that correcting concentration 

data to 17-percent O2 rather than 7- 

percent, as proposed, provides more 

representative values of kilns’ operating 

conditions and would not artificially 

inflate the values. Therefore, the EPA 

recalculated the oxygen-corrected PM 

and Hg test runs to be corrected to 17- 

percent instead of 7-percent O2. 

2. Changes to the MACT Floor Pool and 

Calculations 

At proposal, the MACT floors for PM 

as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP 

metals were based on kilns with FFbased APCD, as the EPA considered 

those to be the best performing sources 

in the industry. However, as noted in 

section IV.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA 

after proposal examined the PM test 

data in an effort to insure that the data 

were valid. We found a number of the 

EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or 

filter temperatures outside of the range 

of acceptable values. These out-of-range 

temperatures invalidated the test runs, 

and in some cases, invalidated entire 

PM tests, reducing the set of valid, 

available test data. Some of the PM test 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65485 

data removed from the data set were for 

kilns controlled with a DIFF. As a 

result, the EPA no longer has data on all 

the kilns with a FF-based APCD in the 

industry, which undercuts one of the 

bases for EPA’s proposal to use the best 

performing FF-based kilns to set a 

MACT floor based on 12 percent of the 

kilns in the entire category. 

In addition, at proposal the EPA 

requested more data to further 

substantiate that kilns with FF-based 

APCD actually represented the best 

performing sources in terms of PM 

emissions. For example, there were 

some data in the record at the time of 

the proposal suggesting that in some 

cases, uncontrolled kilns actually had 

emissions below the PM emissions of 

some kilns with FF-based APCD, which 

is contrary to what we would expect. 

The EPA requested information to 

explain these anomalies. However, 

information was not received during the 

comment period sufficient to explain 

why some kilns without FF-based APCD 

emitted at levels as low as or lower than 

some kilns with FF-based APCD. 

For this reason, and because some of 

the emissions data on DIFF-controlled 

kilns had to be removed from the data 

pool as discussed above, the record does 

not support the conclusion that we have 

PM emissions data on all the best 

performing kilns in the industry. Given 

that, we are instead basing the PM 

MACT floor on 12 percent of the kilns 

for which we have emissions data. 

Therefore, the final MACT floor pools 

for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg 

HAP metals are not based on the top 12 

percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., 

the 27 best performing sources). Instead, 

the final MACT floor limits are based on 

the top 12 percent of the sources for 

which we have emissions data available 

in each of the kiln size subcategories, 

consistent with the approach described 

for the proposed alternate non-Hg HAP 

metals standards in section IV.Q.1 of the 

preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 

75649). 

In addition, in response to public 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, and consistent with the proposed 

alternate approach in section IV.Q.1 of 

the preamble to the proposed rule, the 

EPA has decided to exercise its 

discretion to subcategorize for emissions 

of PM based on kiln size in the final 

rule. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA 

allows the EPA to promulgate emission 

standards for either categories or 

subcategories of sources. Section IV.C of 

the preamble to the proposed rule (79 

FR 75633) described the EPA’s 

assessment of tunnel kiln size 

subcategories. When the EPA 

recalculated the MACT floor pools for 

PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP 

metals as described in the previous 

paragraph, the EPA evaluated 

subcategorizing by kiln size and 

determined it is appropriate to exercise 

its discretion to subcategorize in this 

case. This subcategorization provides 

additional flexibility for small tunnel 

kilns, many of which are operated by 

small businesses. Therefore, the final 

MACT floor limits for PM as a surrogate 

for total non-Hg HAP metals are based 

on the best performing 12 percent of the 

sources in each of the kiln size 

subcategories with valid test data (i.e., 

12 percent of the data available). 

The EPA also proposed two 

alternative equivalent limits, calculated 

based on the same best performing 

sources ranked by lb/ton, then using 

those units’ concentration or lb/hr data 

to calculate the floor. During the public 

comment period, the EPA received 

comments that each alternative limit 

should be calculated according to a 

separate ranking based on the specific 

unit of measure. Upon further analysis 

of the data sets for each unit of measure, 

the EPA has found that there are some 

differences in the top ranked sources 

between each unit of measure data set 

and thus finds the alternative limits 

expressed on their own unit of measure 

data set ranking to be the most 

indicative of that data set’s MACT floor. 

Therefore, the EPA re-ranked the data 

for each unit of measurement in each 

kiln size subcategory separately. The 

final alternative equivalent limits are 

based on the top 12 percent of the data 

available in each subcategory according 

to these revised rankings. In other 

words, the concentration floor is based 

on the ranking of the concentration data, 

and the lb/hr floor is based on the 

ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is 

based on the best performing units for 

that unit of measurement. In addition, 

the final lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals 

alternative limit is based on a ranking of 

the non-Hg HAP metals data rather than 

the use of conversion factors applied to 

the PM lb/ton floor limit, as was done 

at proposal. 

3. Variability Calculation Based on Hg 

Raw Material Data 

At proposal, the EPA developed Hg 

MACT floors based on the best 

performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., 

the lowest emitting sources of Hg 

emissions from test data). However, 

commenters identified that the Hg 

comes from the raw materials used and 

the Hg content can vary by location, 

even within the same quarry. The EPA 

did not account for this inherent 

variability at proposal. The Brick 

Industry Association (BIA) coordinated 

with several BSCP facilities to test the 

Hg content of the raw materials used 

and provided the data to the EPA. The 

EPA mapped the facilities and quarry 

locations provided by BIA to identify 

two distinct quarry locations, an 

Oklahoma deposit and an Ohio deposit, 

for use in the development of a Hg raw 

material variability factor. The data from 

these two deposit locations were 

incorporated into the upper prediction 

limit (UPL) equation. Please see 

‘‘Mercury Content of Oklahoma and 

Ohio Shale Deposits Supplying the 

Brick Industry’’ and ‘‘Final Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for more 

information about the data and 

variability factor. 

4. Startup and Shutdown Procedures 

The EPA proposed work practice 

standards during periods of startup and 

shutdown for tunnel kilns with and 

without APCD. These standards set a 

minimum temperature above which the 

exhaust must be vented through an 

APCD (if applicable) and below which 

no product could be introduced to the 

kiln (400 °F for startup and 300 °F for 

shutdown). Industry commenters 

indicated that the exhaust of some kilns 

never reaches the specific temperatures 

proposed by the EPA, and that some 

product must be introduced to the kiln 

during startup to heat the kiln enough 

for full production. The EPA evaluated 

these comments and agrees that the 

proposed standards do not actually 

represent the work practices 

representative of the best performing 

kilns. The intent of the proposed 

standards was to represent work 

practices of the best performing kilns to 

minimize emissions by limiting the 

amount of brick being fired before the 

kiln reaches full production and 

limiting the amount of time the exhaust 

is not being routed to the APCD, if 

applicable. As noted at proposal, the 

standards were based on information 

received through the 2010 EPA survey. 

The EPA received additional 

information following proposal on the 

procedures used during periods of 

startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel 

kilns that are more representative of the 

best performing kilns. 

Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown that are based upon the 

same principles as the proposed 

standards but are representative of how 

kilns actually perform during startup. 

Instead of defining the minimum inlet 

APCD temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is 

requiring the owner or operator to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

determine the minimum inlet 

temperature for each APCD. If a kiln 

does not have an APCD, the owner or 

operator is required to determine the 

product-specific kiln temperature 

profile that must be achieved before the 

kiln can reach full production. In 

addition, instead of specifying that no 

product can be introduced to the kiln 

during startup, the EPA is requiring the 

owner or operator to determine the 

production rate needed to start up the 

kiln. The final startup standards specify 

that this startup production rate cannot 

be exceeded until the kiln exhaust 

reaches the APCD minimum inlet 

temperature or the product-specific kiln 

temperature profile. The final shutdown 

standards specify that no additional 

product can be introduced once the kiln 

exhaust falls below the APCD minimum 

inlet temperature or the product-specific 

kiln temperature profile. 

B. What are the significant changes 

since proposal for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP? 

1. Changes to the Data Set 

After proposal, a public commenter 

identified a transcription error in the 

production rate for the PM and Hg stack 

tests for one floor tile roller kiln. The 

production rate was corrected, and the 

PM and Hg lb/ton values were 

recalculated. In addition, the EPA 

examined the PM test data more closely 

and found that a number of the EPA 

Method 5 test runs had probe or filter 

temperatures outside of the range of 

acceptable values. EPA Method 5 

specifies that the temperature should be 

maintained at 248 ± 25 °F (i.e., between 

223 and 273 °F). Test runs with 

temperatures outside that range were 

removed from the data set. (See the 

memorandum ‘‘Test Data Used in Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing Final Rule’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290 for more information on this 

analysis.) 

During the public comment period, 

the sanitaryware manufacturing 

company that provided all of the data 

used for the sanitaryware tunnel kiln 

MACT floors clarified that the 

production rates they provided in their 

CAA section 114 survey response are in 

terms of ‘‘greenware fired’’ into the kiln 

rather than ‘‘fired product’’ coming out 

of the kiln (as requested in the section 

114 survey). Therefore, to be consistent 

with the data, the final emission limits 

for PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals and Hg from sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns are in terms of lb/ton of greenware 

fired rather than lb/ton of product fired 

(as proposed). 

Finally, in response to comments 

requesting a change in the format of the 

emission limits for dioxins/furans, the 

EPA recalculated the emissions for each 

test run in units of ng/kg of throughput 

(specifically, ‘‘fired product’’ for 

ceramic tile roller kilns, ‘‘greenware 

fired’’ for sanitaryware tunnel kilns, and 

‘‘throughput processed’’ for ceramic tile 

press dryers and spray dryers). The 

MACT floors were then recalculated 

using those data, and the final emission 

limits for dioxins/furans for clay 

ceramics sources are in units of ng/kg 

rather than concentration as proposed. 

2. Startup and Shutdown Procedures 

The EPA proposed work practice 

standards during periods of startup and 

shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, 

floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray 

dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

with and without APCD. These 

standards set a minimum temperature 

above which the exhaust must be vented 

through an APCD (if applicable) and 

below which no product could be 

introduced to the kiln or dryer (400 °F 

for startup and 300 °F for shutdown). 

One industry commenter indicated that 

the exhaust of some dryers never reach 

the specific temperatures proposed by 

the EPA. The EPA evaluated the 

comment and agrees that the proposed 

standards are not actually representative 

of the best performing dryers. 

Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown that are based upon the 

same principles as the proposed 

standards but more accurately reflect 

the best performing sources. Instead of 

defining the minimum inlet APCD 

temperature as 400 °F, the EPA is 

requiring the owner or operator to 

determine the minimum inlet 

temperature for each APCD. If a kiln or 

dryer does not have an APCD, the owner 

or operator is required to determine the 

product-specific kiln or dryer 

temperature profile that must be 

achieved before the kiln or dryer can 

reach full production. In addition, 

instead of specifying that no product 

can be introduced to the kiln or dryer, 

the EPA is requiring the owner or 

operator to determine the production 

rate needed to start up the kiln or dryer. 

The final startup standards specify that 

this startup production rate cannot be 

exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

reaches the APCD minimum inlet 

temperature or the product-specific kiln 

or dryer temperature profile. The final 

shutdown standards specify that no 

additional throughput can be 

introduced once the kiln or dryer 

exhaust falls below the APCD minimum 

inlet temperature or the product-specific 

kiln or dryer temperature profile. 

C. What are the changes to monitoring 

requirements since proposal? 

A number of changes have been made 

to the monitoring requirements for the 

BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP in response to comments on 

the proposed rule. These changes are 

summarized in Table 6 of this preamble. 

Further details about the basis for these 

changes are provided in the response-tocomments documents for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, 

available in Docket Nos. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290 (Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing) and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291 (BSCP Manufacturing). 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SINCE PROPOSAL

Sources 

Monitoring requirements 

Proposal Promulgation 

BSCP or clay ceramics kilns equipped with a 

wet scrubber.

To demonstrate compliance with acid gas 

standard: 

To demonstrate compliance with acid gas 

standard: 

• Monitor scrubber liquid pH ...........................

• Monitor scrubber chemical feed rate (if applicable).

• Maintain at or above average pH/feed rate 

during acid gas test.

• Monitor scrubber liquid pH 

• Maintain at or above highest average ph 

during acid gas test 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65487 

1 ‘‘Responses to Public Comments on National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units.’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20126. 2National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters, 75 FR 32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010). 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SINCE PROPOSAL—Continued 

Sources 

Monitoring requirements 

Proposal Promulgation 

To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP 

metals standard: 

• Monitor scrubber pressure drop. ..................

• Maintain at or above average pressure drop 

during PM/non-Hg HAP metals test..

To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP 

metals and acid gas standards: 

• Monitor scrubber liquid flow rate. 

• Maintain at or above highest average flow 

rate during PM/non-Hg HAP metals and 

acid gas tests. 

To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP 

metals and acid gas standards: 

• Monitor scrubber liquid flow rate. .................

• Maintain at or above average flow rate during PM/non-Hg HAP metals and acid gas 

tests..

BSCP kilns with no add-on control .................... To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP 

metals standard: 

• Perform daily, 15-minute VE observations.

• If VE are observed, initiate and complete 

corrective actions..

To demonstrate compliance with non-Hg HAP 

metals standard: 

• Perform daily, 15-minute VE observations 

• If VE are observed, promptly conduct an 

opacity test 

• If opacity greater than 10% are observed, 

initiate and complete corrective actions 

Clay ceramics kilns with no add-on control, or 

intending to comply with dioxin/furan standard without an ACI system.

To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/

furans standard: 

• Monitor kiln operating temperature. .............

• Maintain at or above average operating 

temperature during dioxin/furan test..

To demonstrate compliance with dioxins/

furans standard: 

• Monitor kiln stack temperature 

• Maintain at or below highest stack temperature during dioxin/furan test 

V. Summary of Significant Comments 

and Responses 

The EPA received a total of 52 public 

comment letters on the proposed BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP. (See Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for the 

complete public comments.) The EPA 

received a total of seven public 

comment letters on the proposed Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. (See 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290 for the complete public 

comments.) The following sections 

summarize the major public comments 

received on the proposal and present 

the EPA’s responses to those comments. 

A. Health-Based Standards 

Comment: Two commenters disagreed 

with setting standards under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) for emissions of HCl, 

HF, and Cl2 from new and existing 

BSCP and clay ceramics sources. One 

commenter questioned whether the EPA 

has the authority to set CAA section 

112(d)(4) standards for these acid gases. 

The commenter asserted that it would 

be arbitrary and capricious for the EPA 

to set risk-based standards for these 

pollutants when the EPA previously 

decided not to set CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2 in air 

toxics rulemakings for industrial boilers 

and power plants. For power plants, the 

EPA stated that the agency ‘‘does not 

have sufficient information to establish 

CAA section 112(d)(4) health-based 

emission standards and we did not 

receive such data during the comment 

period.’’1 The commenter noted that the 

EPA reached a similar conclusion with 

respect to industrial boilers, declining to 

set risk-based standards because of a 

lack of information on emissions.2 The 

commenter asserted that the health and 

scientific data regarding emissions of 

acid gases from BSCP and clay ceramics 

plants similarly fail to provide 

justification for setting HBEL for these 

pollutants. The commenter asserted the 

EPA must instead set MACT standards. 

Similarly, the second commenter 

expressed concern over using CAA 

section 112(d)(4) and health-based risk 

assessment for setting the HCl, HF and 

Cl2 standards for BSCP Manufacturing 

and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. The 

commenter noted that this would be the 

first time the EPA used the health-based 

risk assessment approach under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) to set emission 

standards for HF and Cl2; although the 

EPA has used this approach in the past 

to establish health-based standards for 

other source categories, it was restricted 

to ‘‘HCl emissions for discrete units 

within the facility’’ (79 FR 75639). 

The commenter supported focusing 

on pollutants that pose the greatest risks 

but expressed concern that the EPA has 

not adequately established that the 

approaches used are appropriate. The 

commenter asserted that the EPA’s 

approach represented a far-reaching and 

significant change in the manner in 

which MACT standards are established 

under CAA section 112(d) and that it 

was inappropriate for the EPA to 

propose such changes in a rulemaking 

for individual source categories instead 

of discussing the approach with all 

affected parties. The commenter noted 

that Congress established section 112 of 

the CAA to rely on a technology-based 

approach to avoid the gridlock of the 

unsuccessful risk-based methods used 

before the adoption of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments. Accordingly, while the 

CAA includes language under section 

112(d)(4) allowing the use of risk in the 

establishment of MACT, it should be 

used only under limited and very 

specific circumstances, and the 

commenter stated that the EPA’s 

proposal did not adequately make the 

case for the use of CAA section 

112(d)(4). 

Conversely, two other commenters 

stated that the EPA has clear legal 

authority to set HBEL and ample 

justification to do so for the BSCP 

source category. The commenters stated 

that under the terms of this provision, 

the EPA may set an emission standard 

at a level higher than would be required 

by CAA section 112(d)(4), provided that: 

(1) The pollutant(s) being regulated is a 

threshold pollutant and (2) the standard 

provides an ample margin of safety. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 

171. 

4Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. 

Halperin, T. Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal 

cancer and exposure to acid mists. Br. J. of Ind. 

Med. 45: 766–776. 

5Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T. 

McQuiston, M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. 

Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. Halperin. 1987. Lung 

cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric acid 

mist and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911–921. 

6Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen 

G.W. Lung cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: 

results from a nested case-control study of chemical 

workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958–61. 

7Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. 

Kuschner, N. Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. 

Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride 

induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer 

Inst. 68(4): 597–603. 

8Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and 

R.E. Albert. 1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde 

and hydrogen chloride in rats. Toxicol. Appl. 

Pharmacol. 81: 401–406. 

9Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 

1992. Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured 

mammalian cells. Mutat. Res. 268: 297–305. 

10Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 

1987. Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency 

at the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma 

L5178Y TK=/- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39–46. 

11U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, 

Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine. 2003. Available at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf. 

commenters stated that both of these 

criteria are met in this case. 

The commenters asserted that the 

proposed standard is consistent with 

Congress’s expectations regarding the 

implementation of CAA section 

112(d)(4). According to the Senate 

report accompanying the legislation, 

‘‘For some pollutants a MACT emission 

limitation may be far more stringent 

than is necessary to protect public 

health and the environment’’ and in 

such situations, ‘‘[t]o avoid 

expenditures by regulated entities 

which secure no public health or 

environmental benefit, the 

Administrator is given discretionary 

authority to consider the evidence for a 

health threshold higher than MACT at 

the time the standard is under review.’’ 3

The commenters stated that for this 

rulemaking, MACT would result in 

emission standards that are far more 

stringent than are needed to protect 

health and the environment and 

asserted that Congress enacted CAA 

section 112(d)(4) to allow emission 

standards to be tailored to protect public 

health without imposing unreasonable 

and unnecessary standards on affected 

sources. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters that we do not have the 

authority to establish CAA section 

112(d)(4) standards in this rulemaking. 

The EPA also disagrees that the decision 

to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standards is inconsistent with our 

decisions on other rulemakings. The 

commenters’ more detailed arguments 

and the EPA’s responses are provided in 

the remainder of this section. 

1. Health Thresholds 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

a pollutant is not a threshold pollutant 

under CAA section 112(d)(4) unless the 

EPA establishes that it cannot cause 

cancer at any level of exposure. The 

commenter asserted that HCl, HF, and 

Cl2 do not have already-established safe 

health thresholds and the EPA’s 

proposed standards would not provide 

‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ 

Conversely, two commenters agreed 

with the EPA that the available health 

data indicate that HCl, HF, and Cl2 are 

all threshold pollutants. The 

commenters stated that the data show 

that each of these pollutants has a 

discernible exposure threshold below 

which adverse human health effects are 

not expected to occur; in addition, none 

of the available data suggest that these 

pollutants reasonably should be 

expected to act as a carcinogen or 

mutagen, or exhibit a mode of action 

that would result in non-threshold 

effects. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

first commenter regarding HCl, HF and 

Cl2 not having thresholds accepted by 

the scientific community, and we 

acknowledge the support of the other 

two commenters. The EPA’s conclusion 

that HCl, HF and Cl2 are threshold 

pollutants is based on the best available 

toxicity database considered in hazard 

identification and dose response 

assessments. There is agreement on 

using a similar threshold approach for 

these chemicals across agencies, i.e., the 

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) Program, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR) and the California 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(CalEPA). The toxicity assessments, 

which include noncancer and/or cancer 

toxicity assessments, provided by these 

authoritative bodies are widely vetted 

through the scientific community and 

undergo rigorous peer review processes 

before they are published. In addition, 

the Science Advisory Board (SAB) has 

endorsed the use of the reference values 

derived by these sources to support the 

EPA’s risk assessments in the residual 

risk and technology review (RTR) 

program. 

Specifically, none of the compounds 

discussed here has been classified as a 

carcinogen or as ‘‘suggestive of the 

potential to be carcinogenic,’’ 

individually or in combination, by 

existing authoritative bodies, including 

EPA, CalEPA, International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC), 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development (OECD), and the 

European Community. In light of the 

absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk 

for any of these pollutants, and the 

evidence of an existing threshold below 

which HCl, HF and Cl2 are not expected 

to cause adverse effects, the EPA 

considers it appropriate to set health 

threshold standards under CAA section 

112(d)(4) for these pollutants. The 

existing health effects evidence on HCl, 

HF and Cl2 that provide support for this 

determination is described below. 

Potential health effects of HCl: 

• There are limited studies on the 

carcinogenic potential of HCl in 

humans. The occupational data are 

limited to a couple of studies (Steenland 

et al., 1988, Beaumont et al., 1986)4,5

where the subjects were exposed to a 

mixture of acid gases (mainly sulfuric 

acid)and other chemicals (including 

metals) that may have contained HCl. 

These studies failed to separate 

potential exposure of HCl from exposure 

to other substances shown to have 

carcinogenic activity and are therefore 

not appropriate to evaluate the 

carcinogenic potential of HCl. Another 

occupational study failed to show 

evidence of association between 

exposure to HCl and lung cancer among 

chemical manufacturing plant 

employees showing that there is no 

evidence that HCl is a human 

carcinogen.6

• Consistent with the human data, 

chronic inhalation studies in animals 

have reported no carcinogenic responses 

after chronic exposure to HCl (Albert et 

al., 1982; Sellakumar et al., 1985).7,8

• Hydrogen chloride has not been 

demonstrated to be genotoxic. The 

genotoxicity database consists of two 

studies showing false positive results 

potentially associated with low pH in 

the test system (Morita et al., 1992; 

Cifone et al., 1987).9,10

• Chronic exposure to HCl at 

concentrations below the current IRIS 

reference concentration (RfC) are not 

expected to cause adverse effects. 

Potential health effects of HF: 

• There are a limited number of 

studies investigating the carcinogenic 

potential of HF. These studies are 

unreliable on the issue of possible 

carcinogenicity of HF and/or fluorides, 

in general, because of many 

confounding factors (e.g., exposure to 

multiple unknown chemicals and 

smoking habits not accounted for) and 

because no breakdown was done by 

type of fluoride exposure.11


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65489 

12U.S. EPA, Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/risk_

assessment/glossary.htm (last updated Apr. 28, 

2014). 

13U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk Information 

System—Hydrogen chloride. http://www.epa.gov/

iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal. 

14 IARC, Hydrochloric Acid (Monograph), 

available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/

Monographs/vol54/mono54-8.pdf. 

• Chronic exposure at or below the 

current CalEPA reference exposure level 

(REL) is not expected to cause adverse 

effects. 

Potential health effects of Cl2: 

• The existing studies of workers in 

the chemical industry have not found 

any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic. 

• Chronic bioassays in rodents and 

long-term studies in non-human 

primates have shown no evidence for 

carcinogenicity in respiratory tract as 

target tissue or other tissues. 

• Chronic exposure to Cl2 at 

concentrations below the current 

ATSDR minimal risk level (MRL) are 

not expected to cause adverse effects. 

We disagree with the comment that 

the EPA’s proposed HBEL does not 

provide an ample margin of safety, for 

the following reasons. 

First, the limit is based on the facility 

in the source category with the highest 

potential exposure to nearby residents. 

The HBEL at this single facility reflects 

a ratio of exposure concentration over 

the reference value of up to 1 (at an 

exposure concentration below the RfC is 

considered to be health protective). As 

such, exposures will not exceed the 

established health threshold at this 

facility. In addition, the exposure 

estimate used to set the limit is very 

health protective in that it assumes 

constant exposure for 70 years. Actual 

exposures from emissions from this 

facility are expected to be lower (i.e., 

because persons will spend time away 

from home). This conservative exposure 

scenario is consistent with the ‘‘ample 

margin of safety’’ requirement in CAA 

section 112(d)(4). 

Second, the ratios at the other 

facilities (not the highest facility noted 

above) from this source category are 

lower and in most cases significantly 

lower, with approximately 90 percent of 

these facilities having a ratio of 0.5 or 

less, which provides a further increased 

margin of safety beyond the ample 

margin of safety established at the 

facility with the highest potential 

exposure. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

according to the EPA, an RfC is merely 

‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty spanning 

perhaps an order of magnitude)’’ of an 

exposure that is ‘‘likely to be’’ without 

health risks.12 By definition, this 

‘‘estimate’’ is not by itself a ‘‘safe 

threshold’’ of exposure that ‘‘presents 

no risk’’ of adverse health effects. The 

commenter stated the EPA cannot 

lawfully use a pollutant’s RfC as a 

default ‘‘safe threshold’’ under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) because an RfC does 

not pose ‘‘no’’ health risks, as the 

commenter asserted the CAA requires. 

The commenter stated that the EPA is 

authorized to set risk-based standards 

only where it has direct evidence of the 

level at which there are no adverse 

effects observed and that proceeding 

with HBEL without a no observed 

adverse effect level (NOAEL) is 

unlawful. Another commenter stated the 

use of health-based standards should 

only be considered for HAP that have 

been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA 

and are contained in the IRIS database 

with a high level of confidence in the 

RfC. With respect to HCl, the IRIS 

confidence levels are ‘‘Low’’ for the 

inhalation RfC. In ‘‘Carcinogenicity 

Assessment for Lifetime Exposure,’’ IRIS 

states, ‘‘This substance/agent has not 

undergone a complete evaluation and 

determination under the EPA’s IRIS 

program for evidence of human 

carcinogenic potential.’’ 13 In the 

proposal, the EPA acknowledged that 

‘‘[t]he EPA has not classified HCl for 

carcinogenicity’’ and ‘‘[l]ittle research 

has been conducted on its 

carcinogenicity’’ (79 FR 75639). 

The commenter also stated that IARC 

concluded that ‘‘[t]here is inadequate 

evidence for the carcinogenicity in 

humans of hydrochloric acid,’’ that 

‘‘[t]here is inadequate evidence for the 

carcinogenicity in experimental animals 

of hydrochloric acid,’’ and that HCl ‘‘is 

not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity 

to humans.’’ 14 The commenter stated 

that the EPA did not identify any 

evidence that HCl is not carcinogenic 

and noted that the only study the EPA 

referenced is ‘‘one occupational study’’ 

that ‘‘found no evidence of 

carcinogenicity’’ (79 FR 75639). Because 

the EPA did not provide a citation for 

the study or otherwise identify it or 

discuss it, the public are unable to 

adequately comment on it. 

Response: The EPA’s risk assessments 

are supported by the best available 

toxicity assessments from authoritative 

bodies including the EPA’s IRIS 

Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The SAB 

has endorsed the use of the reference 

values derived by these sources to 

support EPA’s risk assessments in the 

RTR program. These authoritative 

bodies derive health protective 

reference values at or below which no 

adverse effects are expected to occur. As 

mentioned previously in this section, 

the toxicity assessments, which include 

noncancer and/or cancer toxicity 

assessments, provided by these 

authoritative bodies are widely vetted 

through the scientific community and 

undergo rigorous peer review processes 

before they are published. 

The commenter stated that there is 

not a NOAEL and that based on that, the 

EPA cannot set a HBEL for HCl. The 

EPA toxicity assessments consider the 

entire toxicity database for specific 

chemicals and are conducted following 

well-established EPA guidance on how 

to assess potential hazard of a chemical 

and conduct dose response assessments. 

These assessments include the 

derivation of an RfC, which is likely to 

be without appreciable risk of adverse 

health effects to the human population 

(including susceptible subgroups and all 

life stages) over a lifetime. According to 

EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived 

from a NOAEL, lowest observed adverse 

effect level (LOAEL) or benchmark dose, 

with uncertainty factors applied to 

reflect the limitations of the data used. 

In particular for HCl, the point of 

departure for the RfC (15 milligrams per 

cubic meter (mg/m 3)) was selected from 

chronic inhalation studies in rodents 

and was adjusted to reflect a lifetime of 

exposure (2.7 mg/m 3) and extrapolated 

to a human equivalent concentration 

(6.1 mg/m 3) based on differences in the 

effects of a gas in the respiratory system 

between rats and humans. Uncertainty 

factors (total of 300, yielding an RfC of 

0.02 mg/m 3) were applied to account 

for interspecies differences, intraspecies 

extrapolation and extrapolation from a 

LOAEL to NOAEL. It is important to 

note that in the IRIS assessment for HCl 

it is stated that a reasonable estimate of 

the NOAEL in humans is in the range 

of 0.3–3 mg/m 3. This estimate resulted 

from an expert review workshop and is 

based on examination of the HCl 

literature, a comparison with sulfuric 

acid toxicity, and the judgment of those 

in attendance at the review workshop. 

In addition, this value is generally 

consistent with identified NOAELs in 

subchronic animal studies (OECD, 

2002). Based on this information, we are 

confident that the IRIS HCl RfC 

represents a conservative health 

protective benchmark below which 

adverse health effects are not expected 

to occur. 

As part of the risk analysis conducted 

to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly 

evaluated all the available and relevant 

scientific evidence on HCl (discussed 

previously in this section) and 

concluded that there is no evidence that 

HCl is a carcinogen and that this 

information is sufficient for this 

regulatory determination. The 2002 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

15United Nations Environment Programme 2002, 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD), Screening Information 

Dataset (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report for SIAM 

15, Hydrogen Chloride: CAS N°:7647–01–0. October 

25, 2002. http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/

sids/7647010.pdf. 

16EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: 

Hydrogen Chloride. 

17Albert, R.E., et al., Gaseous formaldehyde and 

hydrogen chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats, 

68(4) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 597 (1982). 

18S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171, 176. 

19 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS 

Guidance documents available at http://

www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html. 

20Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa 

Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA’s 

draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 

Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— 

MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland 

Cement Manufacturing.’’ May 7, 2010. Available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

21U.S. EPA Air: Fate, Exposure, and Risk 

Analysis Web site. Air Toxics Assessment 

Reference Library, Volume 1. 2004. Available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013– 

08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf. 

22U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Derivation of 

Inhalation Reference Concentrations and 

Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. EPA/600/8– 

90/066F, Oct 1994. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291–0160. 

23U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference 

Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. EPA/ 

630/P–02/002F, Dec 2002. 

OECD assessment of HCl drew similar 

conclusions: 

For genetic toxicity, a negative result has 

been shown in the Ames test. A positive 

result in a chromosome aberration test using 

Hamster ovary cells is considered to be an 

artifact due to the low pH. For 

carcinogenicity, no pre-neoplastic or 

neoplastic nasal lesions were observed in a 

128-week inhalation study with SD male rats 

at 10 ppm hydrogen chloride gas. No 

evidence of treatment related carcinogenicity 

was observed in other animal studies 

performed by inhalation, oral or dermal 

administration. In humans, no association 

between hydrogen chloride exposure and 

tumor incidence was observed.15

Additionally, the EPA conducted a 

screening level literature review in 2003 

and did not identify any critical studies 

that would change the conclusions in 

the 1995 HCl IRIS assessment. Based on 

the information available, the EPA 

concludes that this information is 

sufficient to support setting an HBEL 

under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA proposed to base the HCl 

emission standards on the HCl RfC and 

argued it is unlawful to do so where the 

EPA has ‘‘low confidence’’ in the RfC. 

The commenter stated that it is arbitrary 

to claim there is an established, safe 

health threshold based on a reference 

value in which the EPA has low 

confidence. According to the 

commenter, having low confidence in 

the RfC is the same as admitting that the 

EPA has ‘‘low confidence’’ in the 

proposed emission standards. The fact 

that the EPA was unable to determine a 

no-effect level in a robust and reliable 

scientific study demonstrates concern 

that chronic exposure to even very low 

levels of HCl can compromise health, 

especially in sensitive subpopulations. 

Therefore, the EPA cannot state that HCl 

presents no risk of adverse health 

effects. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

used a non-cancer health threshold for 

HCl based on a chronic inhalation study 

on rats.16 The EPA has determined the 

RfC to be 0.02 mg/m3 (0.0134 part per 

million (ppm)), based on rat studies by 

Albert, et al., demonstrating hyperplasia 

of the nasal mucosa (the protective cell 

lining of the nasal tract and cavities), 

larynx, and trachea.17 The commenter 

asserted that because these rat studies 

failed to identify a NOAEL, the EPA 

based the RfC on a LOAEL (i.e., the 

lowest dose in the study that induced a 

measurable adverse health effect in 

treated animals). The commenter 

asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) does 

not permit risk-based standards where a 

NOAEL has not been determined; at a 

minimum, Congress required that a 

threshold be based on the ‘‘ ‘no 

observable [adverse] effects level’ 

(NOAEL) below which human exposure 

is presumably ‘safe.’ ’’ 18 The EPA has 

similarly recognized that ‘‘the legislative 

history of CAA section 112(d)(4) 

indicates that a health-based emission 

limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

should be set at the level at which no 

observable effects occur’’ (79 FR 75642). 

The commenter stated that, if there is no 

established non-zero threshold level at 

which it has been shown that the 

pollutant has no deleterious health 

effects, then the EPA cannot be certain 

that exposure to the pollutant at a given 

level presents no harm. The commenter 

stated that without a NOAEL, no 

established threshold can exist, and the 

EPA does not have the authority under 

CAA section 112(d)(4) to set an HBEL 

for HCl. 

Response: The EPA’s chemicalspecific toxicity assessments are derived 

using the EPA’s risk assessment 

guidelines and approaches that are well 

established and vetted through the 

scientific community, and follow 

rigorous peer review processes.19 The 

RTR program gives preference to EPA 

values (i.e., RfCs for noncancer 

assessments) for use in risk assessments 

and uses other values, as appropriate, 

when those values are derived with 

methods and peer review processes 

consistent with those followed by the 

EPA. The approach for selecting 

appropriate toxicity values for use in the 

RTR Program has been endorsed by the 

SAB.20

The EPA’s RfCs are assigned 

confidence levels of high, medium and 

low based on the completeness of the 

supporting database. High confidence 

RfCs are considered less likely to change 

substantially with the collection of 

additional information, while low 

confidence RfCs are recognized as being 

based on less complete data and so may 

be subject to change if additional data 

is developed.21 It is important to note 

that a ‘‘low confidence’’ label does not 

indicate that the EPA believes that the 

RfC is unreliable. For a given chemical, 

if there are not adequate or appropriate 

data with which to derive an RfC, one 

is not calculated. All RfCs, even those 

with low confidence, are appropriate for 

regulatory use. 

We disagree with the comment that 

without a NOAEL, no established 

threshold can exist. The EPA toxicity 

assessments for specific chemicals are 

conducted using well-established EPA 

guidance on how to assess potential 

hazard of chemicals and how to conduct 

dose response assessments to arrive at a 

chemical concentration below which we 

do not expect adverse effects to occur 

(i.e., threshold). These assessments 

include the derivation of a RfC which is 

likely to be without appreciable risk of 

adverse health effects to the human 

population (including susceptible 

subgroups and all life stages [e.g., 

children]) over a lifetime. According to 

EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived 

from a NOAEL, LOAEL or benchmark 

dose, with uncertainty factors applied to 

account for relevant extrapolations, 

including extrapolation from LOAEL to 

NOAEL, and to reflect additional 

limitations of the data used.22 23

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the studies the EPA relied upon only 

investigated respiratory effects and did 

not consider other ways HCl could 

cause harm. The commenter noted the 

EPA has acknowledged that the RfC is 

an ‘‘inhalation RfC’’ and represents the 

health risk and toxicity associated with 

the inhalation pathway of exposure only 

(75 FR 32031). The commenter stated 

that the EPA identified no studies that 

indicate whether exposure to HCl—at 

0.02 mg/m3 or any other 

concentration—harms other bodily 

systems. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

comment that the agency investigated 

only respiratory effects and that it did 

not consider other ways in which HCl 

can cause harm. In the principal studies 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65491 

24 IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. http://

www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm (Accessed on July 

24, 2015) 

25California Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), OEHHA Acute, 

8-Hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels 

(REL)s, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/Allrels.html 

(last accessed Mar. 12, 2015). 

26California OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity 

Summaries Using the Previous Version of the Hot 

Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines at 311 (1999), 

available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/ 

AppendixD3_final.pdf. 

27EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a HealthBased Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing 

Source Category, May 19, 2014, Docket Item No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291–0132. 28S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. 

29Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa 

Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA’s 

draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 

Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— 

MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland 

Cement Manufacturing.’’ May 7, 2010. Available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

upon which the RfC is based, a 

complete necropsy was performed on all 

animals. Histologic sections were 

prepared from the nasal cavity, lung, 

trachea, larynx, liver, kidneys, testes, 

and other organs where gross 

pathological signs were present. Due to 

the reactive nature of HCl, however, 

portal of entry effects are anticipated to 

occur first and at lower exposure 

concentrations. The IRIS assessment 24

for HCl included a comprehensive 

review of all the available toxicity data 

for HCl. No effects are expected to occur 

at exposures of HCl at or below the level 

of the RfC. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the RfC is an inadequate basis for 

establishing a threshold because it ‘‘did 

not reflect any potential cumulative or 

synergistic effects of an individual’s 

exposure to multiple HAP or to a 

combination of HAP and criteria 

pollutants’’ and noted that the EPA 

recognized the potential for cumulative 

and synergistic effects was important in 

its consideration of risk-based standards 

in two recent rulemakings (see 75 FR 

32031 and 76 FR 25050). 

The commenter stated that there is no 

‘‘established’’ threshold at the RfC for 

HCl, because the CalEPA has 

determined a lower and more healthprotective value than the RfC. The 

EPA’s chronic inhalation RfC is 0.02 

mg/m3, while California’s chronic 

inhalation REL is 0.009 mg/m3.25 The 

commenter stated that CalEPA’s REL is 

based on the same science as the IRIS 

RfC but was developed more recently 

than the EPA’s RfC, which was last 

revised in 1995.26 The REL is ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no health effects are anticipated in the 

general human population,’’ and the 

EPA’s process for developing RELs ‘‘is 

similar to that used by EPA to develop 

IRIS values and incorporates significant 

external scientific peer review.’’ 27 The 

commenter asserted that the EPA and 

CalEPA disagree about the 

concentration of HCl exposure at which 

no health effects are expected and that 

the disagreement stems from how to 

account for uncertainty and variability 

in interpreting the study results. 

The fact that two agencies have 

determined significantly different ‘‘safe’’ 

levels, the commenter contended, 

demonstrates as a matter of law that 

there is no ‘‘established’’ health 

threshold for HCl and precludes the 

EPA from lawfully setting CAA section 

112(d)(4) standards for HCl. The 

commenter stated that the statute 

requires that a health threshold ‘‘has 

been established’’ and argued the 

legislative history indicates Congress 

intended for CAA section 112(d)(4) 

limits to be used only where there was 

a ‘‘well-established’’ level that presents 

‘‘no risk’’ of adverse effects and about 

which there was no ‘‘dispute.’’ 28 The 

commenter asserted that Congress did 

not grant the Administrator the 

authority to establish the threshold itself 

and that the EPA does not have 

authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standards in situations where there is 

disagreement among expert agencies as 

to what the correct health threshold 

should be. 

The commenter asserted that by 

failing to address the CalEPA REL, the 

EPA contravened its obligation under 

administrative law to address significant 

evidence that detracts from the agency’s 

conclusion. The commenter stated that 

for the EPA to rely solely on the IRIS 

RfC, the EPA would need to explain 

why the CalEPA REL is incorrect and 

why the IRIS RfC reflects the best 

available science and risk assessment 

practices, particularly when the IRIS 

RfC and CalEPA REL thresholds are 

based on the same science and when the 

EPA relied upon CalEPA RELs at several 

other points in its proposal (e.g., the 

EPA used the CalEPA REL for acute 

inhalation exposure to HCl as the basis 

for its CAA section 112(d)(4) standards). 

If the EPA considers CalEPA’s acute 

REL for HCl to reflect a reliable value, 

then the commenter stated it is arbitrary 

to disregard CalEPA’s chronic REL for 

HCl. The commenter further noted the 

EPA relied upon the CalEPA chronic 

REL for HF in order to determine a 

threshold for HF and argued that using 

the CalEPA REL for HF but not for HCl 

is arbitrary. 

Response: At an initial point, with 

respect to the comment that different 

agencies have identified different 

thresholds and so ‘‘as a matter of law’’ 

there is no ‘‘established’’ health 

threshold for HCl, the EPA disagrees 

that the phrase ‘‘has been established’’ 

in CAA section 112(d)(4) means that 

there is universal agreement on the 

health threshold level and that 

differences between CalEPA and the 

EPA demonstrate that no health 

threshold ‘‘has been established.’’ The 

statute does not clearly identify who 

must establish the health threshold or 

how such threshold should be 

established. In the absence of such 

specificity in the statute, the EPA reads 

CAA section 112(d)(4) to authorize the 

EPA to set health-based limits where, in 

the EPA’s expert judgment, there is a 

health threshold for the pollutant below 

which no adverse health effects are 

expected to occur. 

Further, we disagree with the 

comment that there is no established 

threshold at the RfC because CalEPA 

developed a reference value at a lower 

concentration than the RfC. The 

approaches used by both agencies are 

similar and assume a threshold below 

which adverse health effects would not 

be expected; however, there are some 

differences between agencies in 

methods for deriving the estimate for a 

threshold that may affect the final 

resulting values. Both agencies use the 

best available science to support their 

risk assessments. The EPA has an 

approach for selecting appropriate 

health benchmark values and, in 

general, this approach places greater 

weight on the EPA derived health 

benchmarks than those from other 

agencies. The approach favoring EPA 

benchmarks (when they exist) has been 

endorsed by the SAB and ensures use of 

values most consistent with wellestablished and scientifically-based EPA 

science policy.29

Specifically for HCl, we selected the 

IRIS RfC for HCl as the most appropriate 

chronic noncancer health threshold to 

use for this rule. In the case of HF, there 

is not an EPA RfC available and the only 

chronic reference value from an 

authoritative source and appropriate for 

use in this rule is the California REL. 

Comment: Several commenters 

disagreed with the EPA’s decision to set 

a HBEL for HF. These commenters 

contended the EPA does not have the 

authority to set HF standards under 

CAA section 112(d)(4) because the 

scientific data supporting the EPA’s 

findings regarding the carcinogenic 

potential of HF are insufficient and 

unreliable. Three commenters asserted 

that the EPA should not adopt HBEL for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

30 Gallerani, M., et al., Systemic and topical 

effects of intradermal hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. 

Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998). 

31EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics 

Web site: Hydrogen Fluoride, http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html (last updated Oct. 18, 

2013). 

32EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: 

Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride) (CASRN 7782–41–4), 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm (last 

updated Oct. 31, 2014). 

33 Id. 

34ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, 

Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine at 8. 

35EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment 

Overview: The 33 Pollutants, http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last updated Jan. 6, 2015). 

36See, e.g., National Research Council of the 

National Academies, Emergency and Continuous 

Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine 

Contaminants vol.3 at 91–92, available at http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf. 

37National Research Council of the National 

Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure 

Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine 

Contaminants vol.3 at 91–92, available at http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf. 

38 Derryberry O.M., et al., Fluoride exposure and 

worker health-The health status of workers in a 

fertilizer manufacturing plant in relation to fluoride 

exposure, 6 Arch. Environ. Health. 503 (1963). 

39OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity 

Summaries, at 280. 

40National Research Council of the National 

Academies, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk 

Assessment, at 190–93 (2009). 

41 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C) (requiring that, in 

establishing, modifying, leaving in effect, or 

revoking a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide 

chemical residue, ‘‘for purposes of clause (ii)(I) an 

additional tenfold margin of safety for the pesticide 

chemical residue and other sources of exposure 

shall be applied’’ to protect infants and children). 

42See Choi, A.L., et al., Developmental Fluoride 

Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis, 120 Envtl. Health Perspect. 1362 (Oct. 

2012), http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/ 

(reviewing and discussing findings from over 20 

studies); Choi, A.L., et al., Association of Lifetime 

Exposure to Fluoride and Cognitive Functions in 

Chinese Children: A Pilot Study, 47 Neurotox. & 

Teratology 96 (Jan.–Feb. 2015). 

43OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity 

Summaries, at 280. 

44Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 

Massachusetts Chemical Fact Sheet: Hydrofluoric 

Acid, at 1, available at http://www.turi.org/content/ 

download/3663/44840/file/

Fact_Sheet_Hydrofluoric_Acid.pdf. 

45EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary 

Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen 

Fluoride and Related Compounds, EPA/600/8–89/

002F (1988). 

46ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, 

Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine; EPA, Health Issue 

Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects 

Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related 

Compounds. 

HF due to uncertainty about the 

vulnerabilities of children, infants, and 

fetuses to HF exposures at the REL 

concentration used by the EPA to set the 

HF emissions standards. Two 

commenters noted that the proposal 

states, ‘‘There is limited/equivocal 

evidence of the carcinogenic potential of 

HF’’ (79 FR 75641) and ‘‘[t]he EPA has 

not classified HF for carcinogenicity’’ 

(79 FR 75640) and questioned how the 

agency could be confident that HF is 

eligible to be a threshold pollutant if its 

status as a non-carcinogen is uncertain. 

One commenter noted that the EPA 

failed to identify an established, welldefined health-based threshold, below 

which HF does not cause cancer, that is 

based on reliable science and has a high 

level of certainty. The EPA has stated 

that ‘‘carcinogenicity via inhalation of 

fluoride is not considered to be likely by 

most investigators reporting in the 

existing literature’’ (79 FR 75641) and 

that the EPA ‘‘has not classified HF for 

carcinogenicity’’ (79 FR 75640). The 

commenter stated that it is possible that 

HF causes cancer because increased 

rates of cancer have been observed in 

workers exposed to a mixture of 

chemicals that included fluoride 30 and 

noted that the EPA acknowledged data 

suggesting that those with occupational 

exposure to HF have greater than 

normal occurrences of cancer.31 The 

commenter stated that, because of the 

data showing possible carcinogenic 

effect, as well as the data showing 

mutagenic effect in animals, the EPA 

does not have enough evidence to 

classify HF as a threshold pollutant with 

any level of confidence. The commenter 

stated that the EPA failed to explain 

how it weighed the conflicting evidence 

of HF’s carcinogenicity and considered 

EPA’s conclusion to be arbitrary and 

capricious. Three commenters noted 

that the EPA does not consider HF in its 

IRIS database but noted that HF breaks 

down into fluorine, which is included 

in IRIS.32 One commenter stated that 

IRIS indicates no data are available to 

determine an RfC for chronic inhalation 

exposure to fluorine.33 This commenter 

further noted that IARC ‘‘has 

determined that the carcinogenicity of 

fluoride to humans is not 

classifiable.’’ 34 Another commenter 

stated that health-based standards 

should be considered only for HAP that 

are contained in IRIS with a high level 

of confidence in the RfC. 

One commenter noted that although 

the National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA) database does not contain HF,35

the database does provide evidence that 

HF has a mutagenic effect in animals. 

This conclusion was supported by other 

scientific reviews 36 and by the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS), which 

states that ‘‘the overall evidence from 

human animal studies is mixed’’ on the 

question of whether fluoride is 

carcinogenic when inhaled.37

Four commenters questioned the 

EPA’s reliance on a CalEPA risk 

assessment, noting that the CalEPA REL 

is based on a study of adults exposed to 

HF in the workplace 38 and therefore, 

did not include any children. Two 

commenters stated that a 10X 

‘‘intraspecies’’ factor was applied to 

account for variability among humans, 

but noted that CalEPA expressed 

concern about ‘‘the potentially greater 

susceptibility of children to the effects 

of inhaled fluorides, considering the 

rapid bone growth in early years.’’ 39

One commenter recommended the EPA 

use an additional default factor of at 

least 10X to account for uncertainty 

regarding health risks to children, 

infants, and fetuses. The commenter 

stated that a 10X factor would be 

consistent with the NAS 

recommendation40 and with the 10X 

factor enacted by Congress in the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA).41

Another commenter stated that recent 

science not considered at the time 

CalEPA adopted the REL provides 

further support for prior research 

showing that HF has 

neurodevelopmental effects on children 

and that children living in high-fluoride 

areas have been observed to have lower 

IQ scores than those living in lowfluoride areas.42 The commenter 

asserted that the adverse effects of 

fluoride on children are likely to be 

more severe, and long-lasting, compared 

with effects on adults. 

One commenter stated that the 

CalEPA REL is based on a study that 

only examined the increased bone 

density (skeletal fluorosis) endpoint and 

noted that CalEPA stated that ‘‘[t]he 

primary uncertainty in the study was 

the lack of a comprehensive health 

effects examination.’’ 43 The commenter 

stated that the EPA does not know 

whether neurodevelopmental harm, or 

other health effects, are more sensitive 

than skeletal harm; therefore, the EPA 

cannot lawfully set a ‘‘safe’’ threshold at 

a concentration that poses ‘‘no risk’’ of 

health effects with ‘‘an ample margin of 

safety’’ based on a study that lacks ‘‘a 

comprehensive health effects 

examination.’’ 

Another commenter asserted that the 

EPA has insufficient data showing 

exposure to HF at the REL value 

‘‘presents no risk’’ of harm to other 

bodily systems. The commenter noted 

that HF is a possible reproductive 

toxin,44 that occupational studies of 

women exposed to fluoride identified 

increased rates of menstrual 

irregularities,45 and that animal studies 

have found that fluoride impairs 

reproduction and increases the rates of 

fetal bone and teeth malformation.46 In 

addition, chronic inhalation of 

hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation 

and congestion of the nose and throat 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65493 

47CalEPA, Technical Support Document for the 

Determination of Noncancer Chronic Reference 

Exposure Levels. 

48EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary 

Review of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen 

Fluoride and Related Compounds. 

49Burgher, Francois, et al., Experimental 70% 

hydrofluoric acid burns: histological observations 

in an established human skin explants ex vivo 

model, 30.2 Cutaneous & Ocular Toxicology 100 

(2011). 

50CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH): Hydrogen Fluoride/

Hydrofluoric Acid, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html. 

51OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries 

at 1; CalEPA, OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots 

Program: Guidance Manual for Preparation of 

Health Risk Assessments (Feb. 2015), available at 

http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/

2015GuidanceManual.pdf. 

52Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (2003)—‘‘Although elevated cancer rates 

have been reported in some occupational groups 

exposed to hydrogen fluoride and fluoride dusts, 

these studies were not controlled for the multiple 

substance exposures to which industrial workers 

are generally exposed. Because of these multiple 

exposures and the problem inherent in all 

occupational studies in identifying appropriate 

reference populations, only limited evidence from 

such studies is specifically relevant to the 

investigation of possible carcinogenic effects of 

long-term dermal exposure to hydrofluoric acid and 

inhalation exposure to hydrogen fluoride and/or 

fluoride dusts in human beings. As noted 

previously, IARC has determined that the 

carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not 

classifiable.’’ 

53European Union Risk Assessment Report 

(2001)—‘‘Carcinogenicity studies, in which HF has 

been tested, are not available. Studies with NaF 

may provide insight in the carcinogenicity of HF, 

especially for systemic tumours. With the latter 

substance 4 animal studies have been performed, 2 

in which NaF was supplied in the drinking water 

to rats and mice, and two in which NaF was 

administered via the diet, again to rats and mice 

. . . .In the rat drinking water study, equivocal 

indications for osteosarcomas in males were 

obtained, but the rat diet study was negative, 

despite clear indications of fluoride intoxication. 

The mouse drinking water study was also negative. 

The mouse diet study was confounded by the 

presence of a retrovirus which may have (co)- 

induced the growth of benign osteomas thus 

thwarting the interpretation of the study. In the diet 

studies (Maurer et al. 1990; Maurer et al. 1993) bone 

fluoride levels were higher than in the drinking 

water studies (NTP 1990), while in the diet studies 

no indications for osteosarcomas were obtained. 

Furthermore, the osteomas were considered to be 

reminiscent of hyperplasias rather than true bone 

neoplasms. It was concluded that the available data 

is sufficient to suggest that fluoride is not a 

carcinogenic substance in animals (Janssen and 

Knaap 1994) . . . Based on epidemiological data 

IARC (1982) concluded that the evidence for 

carcinogenicity of orally taken fluoride in humans 

is inadequate. Recent studies (cited in CEPA 1993; 

Janssen and Knaap 1994) did not supply evidence 

of a relationship between fluoride in drinking water 

and cancer mortality, either. US–EPA, reviewing 

the epidemiological data for fluoride, stated that no 

conclusion can be drawn as to the carcinogenicity 

of fluoride after inhalatory exposure, because in all 

studies available, humans were exposed to other 

substances as well (Thiessen 1988).’’ 

54Lund K, Ekstrand J, Boe J, S<strand P, and 

Kongerud J. (1997) Exposure to hydrogen fluoride: 

an experimental study in humans of concentrations 

of fluoride in plasma, symptoms, and lung function. 

Occup Environ Med. 54(1):32–37. 

55Oencue, M, Kocak, A, Karaoz, E; Darici, H; 

Savilk, E; and Gultekin, F (2007) Effect of long-term 

fluoride exposure on lipid peroxidation and 

histology of testes in first- and second-generation 

rats. Biological Trace Element Research 118:260– 

268. 

56U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Pesticide: Regulating Pesticides. The Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA). 1996. Available at http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/

backgrnd.htm. 

57U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of 

inhalation reference concentrations and application 

of inhalation dosimetry. (EPA/600/8–90/066F). 

Research Triangle Park, NC. Docket Item No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291–0160. 

58U.S. EPA (2011). Office of the Science Advisor, 

Risk Assessment Forum. Recommended Use of 

Body Weight3⁄4 as the Default Method in Derivation 

of the Oral Reference Dose. February 2011. EPA/

100/R11/0001. 

and bronchitis,47 and animal studies 

found increased rates of kidney and 

liver damage from hydrofluoric acid 

inhalation.48 Further, HF readily 

penetrates the skin, causing deep tissue 

layer destruction,49 and ingestion of HF 

may result in vomiting and abdominal 

pain, with painful necrotic lesions, 

hemorrhagic gastritis, and pancreatitis 

reported after significant exposure.50

The commenter stated the CalEPA 

REL was developed by CalEPA using an 

outdated version of CalEPA’s Hot Spots 

Risk Assessment Guidelines (1999) that 

has been ‘‘superseded’’ by the more 

recent guidelines released in February 

2015.51 The commenter noted the 1999 

version required updating in part 

because it did not include sufficient 

consideration of ‘‘infants and children 

in assessing risks from air toxics.’’ 

Response: The EPA has not reviewed 

HF in the IRIS program. However, we 

concur with the two recent authoritative 

assessments by ATSDR (2003) 52 and the 

European Union (2002) 53 that the 

available evidence does not support 

classifying HF as ‘‘Carcinogenic to 

Humans,’’ ‘‘Likely to Be Carcinogenic to 

Humans’’ or as having ‘‘Suggestive 

Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential’’ 

(U.S. EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessment (2005)). 

All of the studies cited by the 

commenter are from exposure to 

fluoride and not from inhalation 

exposures to HF. Neurodevelopmental 

effects may be relevant to high fluoride 

exposures, but the existing evidence 

shows these effects may occur at 

fluoride exposure levels beyond those 

that would cause respiratory effects if 

HF were the sole source of exposure. In 

the study of Lund (1997),54 plasma 

fluoride concentrations were shown to 

increase in the nanogram per milliliter 

(ng/ml) range from exposures to HF in 

the mg/m3 level (e.g., elevations of 

approximately 20 nanograms fluoride 

per milliliter in plasma resulted from 1- 

hour exposure to 2 mg/m3 HF, with 

notable respiratory and eye irritation 

effects). Reproductive and 

developmental effects in rats have been 

noted from experiments 55 with plasma 

F levels in the 150 ng/ml range 

maintained for over 4 months. The 

primary issue in causing 

neurodevelopmental effects (which have 

yet to be quantified) is likely associated 

with aggregate and cumulative exposure 

from multiple sources of fluorides (e.g., 

water, food, toothpaste) which are 

greater contributors to total fluoride 

body burden and uncontrollable 

variables in establishing this rule, which 

deals with exposures to HF only. 

The EPA also disagrees with the 

comment that a children’s default safety 

factor of 10 should be added to the 

CalEPA REL for HF. In response to the 

10X factor enacted by Congress in the 

FQPA (1996)56 to the EPA non-cancer 

reference value derivation, the agency 

evaluated its methods for considering 

children’s risk in the development of 

reference values. As part of its response, 

the EPA (i.e., the Science Policy Council 

and Risk Assessment Forum) 

established the RfD/RfC Technical Panel 

to develop a strategy for implementing 

the FQPA and examine the issues 

relative to protecting children’s health 

and application of the 10X safety factor. 

One of the outcomes of the Technical 

Panel’s efforts was an in depth review 

of a number of issues related to the RfD/ 

RfC process (U.S. EPA 2002). The most 

critical aspect in the derivation of a 

reference value pertaining to the FQPA 

has to do with variation between 

individual humans and is accounted for 

by a default uncertainty factor when no 

chemical-specific data are available. The 

EPA reviewed the default UF for interhuman variability and found the EPA’s 

default value of 10 adequate for all 

susceptible populations and lifestages, 

including children and infants. The EPA 

also recommends the use of chemicalspecific data in preference to default 

uncertainty factors when available (U.S. 

EPA, 1994, 2011) and is developing 

Agency guidance to facilitate 

consistency in the development and use 

of data-derived extrapolation factors for 

RfCs and reference doses (RfDs) (U.S. 

EPA, 2011).57 58 In agreement with the 

recommendations of the RfC review, 

CalEPA chronic REL for HF was derived 

using an inter-individual uncertainty 

factor of 10, which is considered 

adequate by the EPA for accounting for 

all susceptible populations and 

lifestages, including children and 

infants. 

Regarding the comment that CalEPA’s 

Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

59EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: 

Chlorine, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm 

(last updated Oct. 31, 2014). 

60S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. 

61S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171, 176. 

62EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: 

Chlorine. 

63ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance 

Manual (2005 Update): Appendix F, http://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last 

updated Nov. 30, 2005). 

64ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 

14. 

65ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine at 

20–21 (observing that a value similar to the MRL 

could be calculated using the lowest observed 

adverse effect level (LOAEL) approach if an 

uncertainty factor of only 3 for human variability 

is used and no child-safety uncertainty factor is 

used). 

66CalEPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air 

Contaminants Under the Children’s Environmental 

Health Protection Act, at 27–28. 

67U.S. EPA (2012) Benchmark Dose Technical 

Guidance. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC 

20460. EPA/100/R–12/001, June 2012. Available 

online at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/

files/2015-01/documents/benchmark_dose_

guidance.pdf. 

68Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). 2010. Toxicological profile for 

Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Public Health Service. 

69See National Research Council of the National 

Academies, Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-First 

Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007); National 

Research Council of the National Academies, 

Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The 

Tasks Ahead (2008); NAS, Science and Decisions. 

(1999) have been ‘‘superseded’’ by the 

more recent guidelines released in 

February 2015, the EPA reviewed the 

February 2015 Guidelines information 

provided by the commenter and 

concluded that this information does 

not include methods for conducting 

hazard identification and dose response 

assessments, which are the analyses that 

preclude the derivation of a reference 

value. Therefore, the information 

provided by the commenter does not 

apply to the CalEPA REL derivation 

methods. 

The commenter’s assertion that the 

NATA database does not contain HF is 

incorrect; NATA 2005 (cited above by 

the commenter) does include noncancer 

risk estimates for HF. The HF cancer 

risks are not included in NATA because 

a quantitative cancer analysis for HF 

does not exist. 

Comment: Several commenters 

disagreed with the EPA’s decision to set 

a HBEL for Cl2 and stated the EPA does 

not have the authority to set Cl2

standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

because the EPA does not have reliable 

scientific data demonstrating a ‘‘safe’’ 

threshold for Cl2 and has not 

demonstrated Cl2 presents no cancer 

risk. Two commenters noted that in the 

proposal, the EPA stated that, ‘‘the 

agency presumptively considers Cl2 to 

be a threshold pollutant.’’ The 

commenters asserted that a presumption 

is not adequate for EPA to justify setting 

a health-based standard for Cl2 under 

CAA section 112(d)(4). 

One commenter stated that it is 

possible that Cl2 is carcinogenic and 

noted that Cl2 has not undergone a 

complete evaluation and determination 

of human carcinogenic potential under 

the IRIS program.59 The IARC and the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl2

gas for human carcinogenicity. The 

commenter stated that the absence of 

data showing carcinogenicity is not the 

same as data demonstrating that a 

substance is not carcinogenic. 

According to the commenter, 

Congress authorized CAA section 

112(d)(4) standards only where a 

threshold ‘‘has been established.’’ In 

other words, there must be an alreadyestablished threshold for which there is 

direct evidence that the pollutant 

presents ‘‘no’’ harm at the threshold 

level of exposure, and the law requires 

‘‘well-established’’ factual evidence.60

The commenter asserted that the EPA is 

not authorized to set risk-based 

standards based on a ‘‘presumption’’ of 

the existence of a safe level of exposure 

and that by doing so, the EPA would 

violate the law and fail to ensure 

adequate protection from the health 

risks of hazardous pollution. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

cannot set a health threshold for Cl2

based on a chronic inhalation study on 

monkeys because that study did not 

determine a NOAEL. The commenter 

asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) does 

not permit risk-based standards where a 

NOAEL has not been determined. The 

commenter stated that, at a minimum, 

Congress required that a threshold be 

based on the ‘‘ ‘no observable [adverse] 

effects level’ (NOAEL) below which 

human exposure is presumably 

‘safe.’ ’’ 61 If there is no established nonzero ‘‘threshold’’ level at which it has 

been shown that the pollutant has no 

deleterious health effects, then the 

commenter asserted that the EPA cannot 

be certain that exposure to the pollutant 

at a given level presents ‘‘no’’ harm. 

Two commenters stated that IRIS 

contains ‘‘no data’’ on an RfC for 

chronic inhalation exposure.62 The 

ATSDR MRL on which the proposed Cl2

threshold is based is a ‘‘screening 

value[] only’’ and ‘‘[is] not [an] 

indicator[] of health effects.’’ 63

According to the ATSDR, ‘‘Exposures to 

substances at doses above MRLs will not 

necessarily cause adverse health effects 

and should be further evaluated,’’ 

‘‘MRLs are intended to serve only as a 

screening tool to help you decide if you 

should more closely evaluate exposures 

to a substance found at a site,’’ and 

‘‘uncertainties are associated with [the] 

techniques’’ used to derive MRLs.64

One commenter stated that the MRL 

does not account for the potentially 

greater susceptibility of children, 

infants, and fetuses to Cl2 exposures 65

and noted that CalEPA has recognized 

that Cl2 is a toxic air contaminant ‘‘that 

may disproportionately impact infants 

and children’’ because it can exacerbate 

asthma.66 Therefore, the commenter 

asserted the MRL does not reflect an 

‘‘established’’ safe health threshold at 

which exposure presents ‘‘no’’ adverse 

effects and that it is unlawful for the 

EPA to set CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standards for Cl2. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

comment. As part of the risk analysis 

conducted to support this rule, the EPA 

thoroughly evaluated all the available 

and relevant scientific evidence on Cl2

(as discussed in detail previously in this 

section) and concluded that there is no 

evidence that Cl2 is a carcinogen and 

that this information is sufficient to 

support this regulatory decision. The 

MRL for Cl2 was developed using the 

benchmark dose analysis method, 

which has been widely adopted across 

the risk assessment community and by 

the EPA’s Risk Assessment Forum 67 as 

a more reliable estimate of a threshold 

for an effect than a NOAEL or LOAEL. 

As a result, the REL for Cl2 does define 

a threshold. 

Regarding the assertion that the MRL 

does not take into consideration the 

potential for greater potential effects in 

children, in the development of the 

Toxicological Profile for Chlorine,68

ATSDR performed an exhaustive review 

of all of the relevant health effects data 

available at the time. Until new 

information becomes available, the Cl2

MRL is the most credible, scientifically 

grounded toxicity assessment for Cl2

and the most appropriate reference 

value to use in this regulatory action. 

In the light of the absence of evidence 

of carcinogenic risk from Cl2 exposure 

and the evidence of an existing 

threshold below which Cl2 is not 

expected to cause adverse effects, the 

EPA considers it appropriate to set 

health threshold standards under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) for Cl2. 

Comment: One commenter referenced 

an NAS review of chemical health 

evaluations in the United States that 

concluded improvements in both 

chemical testing and risk assessment are 

needed to assure current risk 

evaluations protect people from toxic 

chemicals.69 The NAS recommended 

the EPA use ‘‘A consistent, unified 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65495 

70 Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic 

Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human 

Health (2012), available at http://www.nrdc.org/

health/files/strengthening-toxic-chemicalriskassessments-report.pdf (citing NAS, Science 

and Decisions). 

71 Janssen et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical 

Risk Assessments to Protect Human Health. 

72NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8–9, 265–66. 

73 Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic 

Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect Human 

Health at 10. 

74S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. 

75See, e.g., National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry and Standards of 

Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 

54970, 54984 (Sept. 9, 2010) (‘‘Setting technologybased MACT standards for HCl . . . would likely 

also result in additional reductions in emissions of 

mercury, along with condensable PM, ammonia, 

and semi-volatile compounds.’’); id. at 54,985 

(‘‘Setting an HCl standard under 112(d)(2) and (3) 

allows the Agency to also address’’ HCN, ammonia, 

and other pollutants.); National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry, 74 FR 21136, 

21160 (May 6, 2009) (‘‘[S]etting a MACT standard 

for HCl is anticipated to result in a significant 

amount of control for other pollutants emitted by 

cement kilns, most notably SO2 and other acid 

gases, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and 

semi-volatile compounds.’’); 75 FR 32030 

Continued 

approach for dose-response modeling 

that includes formal, systematic 

assessment of background disease 

processes and exposures, possible 

vulnerable populations, and modes of 

action that may affect a chemical’s doseresponse relationship in humans; that 

approach redefines the RfD or RfC as a 

risk-specific dose that provides 

information on the percentage of the 

population that can be expected to be 

above or below a defined acceptable risk 

with a specific degree of confidence.’’ 

The NAS also observed that 

‘‘[n]oncancer effects do not necessarily 

have a threshold, or low-dose 

nonlinearity’’ and found that ‘‘[b]ecause 

the RfD and RfC do not quantify risk for 

different magnitudes of exposure but 

rather provide a bright line between 

possible harm and safety, their use in 

risk-risk and risk-benefit comparisons 

and in risk-management decisionmaking is limited.’’ 70

The commenter stated that there may 

be no safe threshold in the human 

population for many chemicals and that 

newer studies show many chemicals 

increase the risk of various noncancer 

health effects—such as reproductive 

harm and neurological effects—at low 

doses, without any scientifically 

identifiable threshold.71 The commenter 

noted that even if a threshold is 

established for an individual, when risk 

is assessed across a diverse population, 

it is unlikely the same threshold applies 

to all individuals because some people 

are more vulnerable than others. 

The commenter stated that, to address 

the fact that very low levels of noncarcinogen exposures can pose health 

risks, NAS recommended that cancer 

and chronic non-cancer risk assessment 

use the same approach.72 The 

commenter noted that the use of RfCs 

for dose-response risk assessment of 

chronic non-cancer health effects may 

significantly underestimate risk: ‘‘For 

these health effects, risk assessments 

focus on defining the reference dose 

(RfD) or reference concentration (RfC), 

which is defined as a dose ‘likely to be 

without an appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects’ over a lifetime of 

exposure. In actual fact, these levels 

may pose appreciable risks.’’ 73

The commenter asserted that the EPA 

ignored the best available, current 

science showing that pollutants have 

health effects at low doses in its 

evaluation of health thresholds for HCl, 

HF, and Cl2 and ignored NAS’s 

recommendation that the EPA use 

similar approaches for chronic noncancer as for cancer risk assessment, 

which presumes deleterious health 

effects for any amount of exposure. 

According to the commenter, the EPA 

lacked sufficient data to demonstrate 

that these pollutants do not cause harm 

at low levels of exposure over time and 

cannot be certain that there exists an 

established, safe health threshold at the 

proposed thresholds. The commenter 

also stated that, because it must be 

assumed that these pollutants cause 

harm at low doses, it is impossible for 

the EPA to meet the CAA’s requirement 

for an ‘‘ample margin of safety.’’ The 

commenter concluded the EPA’s use of 

CAA section 112(d)(4) standards for 

HCl, HF, and Cl2 is indefensible because 

the EPA determined the thresholds 

based on studies that did not identify a 

level at which no health effects were 

observed (i.e., a NOAEL) and the EPA 

itself has low confidence in the 

proposed thresholds. 

Response: The NAS has recognized 

that many of the recommended changes 

for the IRIS Program will need to be 

incorporated over a number of years and 

further recommended that assessments 

continue to be developed as the 

recommendations are implemented (i.e., 

the regulatory process should not be 

halted until all recommendations can be 

enacted). Improvements will thus be 

made over time and the best science 

available will be used in the interim. 

Further, the EPA has a legal obligation 

to proceed with regulatory action based 

on the best, currently available tools. 

The EPA’s conclusion that HCl, HF 

and Cl2 are threshold pollutants is based 

on the best available toxicity database 

considered in hazard identification and 

dose response assessments. There is 

agreement on using a similar threshold 

approach for these chemicals across 

agencies, e.g., the EPA’s IRIS Program, 

ATSDR and CalEPA. The toxicity 

assessments (which may include 

noncancer and/or cancer toxicity 

assessments) provided by these 

authoritative bodies are widely vetted 

through the scientific community and 

undergo rigorous peer review processes 

before they are published. In addition, 

the SAB has endorsed the use of the 

reference values derived by these 

sources to support EPA’s risk 

assessments in the RTR program. 

Specifically, none of the compounds 

discussed here has been classified as 

carcinogenic or suggestive of the 

potential to be carcinogenic, 

individually or in combination by 

existing authoritative bodies including 

the EPA, CalEPA, IARC, OECD, and the 

European Community. In light of the 

absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk 

for any of these pollutants, and the 

evidence of an existing threshold below 

which HCl, HF and Cl2 are not expected 

to cause adverse effects, the EPA 

considers it appropriate to set health 

threshold standards under CAA 

112(d)(4) for these pollutants. 

2. Co-Benefits 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA’s proposal not to set MACT 

standards for acid gases did not fully 

consider the co-benefits of controlling 

criteria pollutants. The commenter 

noted that the legislative history makes 

clear that employing a CAA section 

112(d)(4) standard rather than a 

conventional MACT standard ‘‘shall not 

result in adverse environmental effect 

which would otherwise be reduced or 

eliminated.’’ 74 The EPA asserted that 

where there is an established health 

threshold, the agency may weigh 

additional factors in making a judgment 

as to whether to set CAA section 

112(d)(4) standards or MACT standards, 

including ‘‘[c]o-benefits that would be 

achieved via the MACT standard, such 

as reductions in emissions of other HAP 

and/or criteria pollutants’’ (79 FR 

75622). The commenter asserted that it 

is impossible to make this assessment 

without evaluating the full collateral 

benefits of a MACT standard. 

The commenter noted that the EPA 

has recognized that MACT standards for 

HCl in other source categories resulted 

in reductions in emissions of PM, 

hydrogen cyanide, and other criteria 

and HAP pollutants and has relied upon 

the co-benefits of these reductions as a 

basis for not setting risk-based standards 

for those other source categories.75


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(‘‘[S]etting conventional MACT standards for HCl as 

well as PM . . . would result in significant 

reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most 

notably SO2, non-condensable PM, and other nonHAP acid gases (e.g., hydrogen bromide) and would 

likely also result in additional reductions in 

emissions of mercury and other HAP metals (e.g., 

selenium).’’); 76 FR 25051 (‘‘[S]etting conventional 

MACT standards for HCl as well as PM . . . would 

result in significant reductions in emissions of other 

pollutants, most notably SO2, PM, and other nonHAP acid gases (e.g., hydrogen bromide) and would 

likely also result in additional reductions in 

emissions of Hg and other HAP metals (e.g., Se).’’). 

76U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA–452/R–09– 

006. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291– 

0044. 

77Lerman, S., O.C. Taylor, and E.F. Darley, 1976. 

Phytotoxicity of Hydrogen Chloride Gas with a 

Short-Term Exposure. Atmospheric Environment, 

Vol. 10, pp. 873–878. 

78CCME. 1999b. Canadian National Ambient Air 

Quality Objectives: Process and Status. In: Canadian 

Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999, Canadian 

Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. 

Publication No. 1299, ISBN 1–896997–34–1. 

Available at http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/ 

133/. 

79EC. (Environment Canada). 1996. National 

Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Hydrogen 

Fluoride (HF). Science Assessment Document. A 

Report by the CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air 

Quality Objectives and Guidelines. July. ISBN 0– 

662–25641–7, Catalogue En42–17/6–1997. 

Available online at: http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/ 

sections/mandats/ap50_rio_tinto_alcan/ 

documents/DQ3.1.1.pdf. 

However, for BSCP and clay ceramics 

plants, the EPA only considered the cobenefits of reductions in sulfur dioxide 

(SO2). The commenter argued the EPA 

should have considered the significant 

reductions in PM, hydrogen cyanide, 

and other pollutants that would likely 

result from MACT standards for HCl, 

HF, and Cl2, as these are the same 

reductions that the EPA considered in 

its past rulemakings. The commenter 

stated that these reductions will provide 

enormous health and environmental 

benefits that would not occur if CAA 

section 112(d)(4) standards are finalized 

instead. 

Response: Although not explicitly 

stated in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, the EPA agrees with the 

commenter that MACT standards for 

acid gases for BSCP manufacturing 

facilities are associated with additional 

reductions of PM emissions 

(approximately 460 tpy in the third year 

following promulgation of the 

standards) and non-Hg HAP metals 

emissions. No additional PM or non-Hg 

HAP metals emission reductions would 

be expected from sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns because it is anticipated that all 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet 

the MACT floor emission limits for HF 

and HCl without additional APCD. The 

EPA has no information suggesting that 

HCN is emitted from BSCP or clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities, so no 

reduction in HCN would be expected 

from MACT standards for HF, HCl, and 

Cl2.

For the past rulemakings in which the 

EPA considered co-benefits as part of a 

CAA section 114(d)(4) evaluation, the 

EPA did not quantify the PM emissions 

reductions associated with MACT 

standards (see 79 FR 75641, footnote 

27), so a direct comparison of the cobenefits of the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP with the cobenefits of these other rules for PM is 

not possible. The only pollutant with 

quantified emissions reductions in the 

co-benefits analyses for these other 

rulemakings was SO2, so that was the 

pollutant highlighted in the co-benefits 

analysis for BSCP and clay ceramics at 

proposal. The additional nationwide 

reductions of SO2 that would be 

attributable to MACT standards for acid 

gases in the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP are estimated to be only 4,700 

tpy in the third year following 

promulgation of the standards. No 

additional nationwide reductions of SO2

would be attributable to MACT 

standards for acid gases in the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 

because it is anticipated that all 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet 

the MACT floor emission limits without 

additional APCD. As noted at proposal, 

these reductions are substantially lower 

than the co-benefits from MACT 

standards for other industries for which 

the EPA has decided not to set a HBEL, 

and it would not be expected to provide 

a significant public health benefit. 

3. Ecosystem Impacts 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the ecological impacts of 

the proposed HBEL for acid gases. The 

commenter stated that federal, state and 

local agencies have struggled for years 

to reduce emissions of SO2 and other 

acid gases to prevent the devastating 

effects of acid rain on large ecosystems 

and noted the proposed standards 

would likely result in the acidification 

of the ecosystems in close proximity to 

BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing 

sources. The commenter asserted the 

ecological impact analysis of the 

emissions standards for this proposal is 

inadequate. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the ecological analysis 

is inadequate. The environmental 

screening analysis evaluated potential 

damage and reduced productivity of 

plants due to chronic direct exposure to 

HCl and HF emitted by clay ceramics 

manufacturing facilities and BSCP 

manufacturing facilities into the air. The 

chronic 90-day benchmarks used in the 

environmental risk screen for the acid 

gases are shown in Table 7 of this 

preamble and discussed in the following 

section. 

TABLE 7—ACID GAS BENCHMARKS INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL

RISK SCREEN

Acid gas 

Chronic 

90-day 

benchmark 

in μg/m3 a

Hydrochloric acid—LOEL ..... b50 

Hydrofluoric acid—Plant 

Community LOEL .............. 0.5 

Hydrofluoric acid—Plant 

Community LOEL .............. 0.4 

a Micrograms per cubic meter. 

b Note that the human health RfC is 20 μg/ 

m3, which is lower than the ecological 

benchmark. 

For HCl, the EPA identified chronic 

benchmark concentrations as described 

in a 2009 EPA document on RTR risk 

assessment methodologies.76 The 

chronic benchmark for HCl was based 

on a lowest observed effects level 

(LOEL) from a short-term exposure (20 

minutes) that related HCl concentration 

to ‘‘changes’’ in the leaves of 7 out of 8 

plant species as reported by Lerman et 

al.77 It was the lowest exposure 

concentration at which effects of any 

type were seen (visible injury to some 

proportion of leaves). Haber’s law was 

used to extrapolate the 1.5 mg/m3 LOEL 

concentration (20-minute exposure) to a 

0.5 mg/m3 concentration expected to 

produce the same effect after 1 hour. 

The 1-hour estimated LOEL was 

extrapolated to a chronic benchmark by 

dividing by a factor of ten to yield 0.050 

mg/m3, or 50 mg/m3. 

For HF, the EPA used two chronic 

benchmark concentrations for plants in 

the environmental screening analysis. 

The value of 0.5 mg HF/m3 is based on 

the Washington State criterion for 

gaseous HF and represents a LOEL. The 

value of 0.4 mg HF/m3 is based on the 

Environment Canada criteria and also 

represents a LOEL. 

To protect vegetation from adverse 

effects resulting from HF exposure, the 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the 

Environment 78 recommends that HF 

concentrations not exceed 0.4 mg/m3

over a 30- to 90-day period; HF 

concentrations can be higher for shorter 

exposures). Environment Canada 79

defined the effect represented by the 

level of 0.4 mg HF/m3 as: 

The level above which there are 

demonstrated effects on human health and/ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65497 

80National Acid Precipitation Assessment 

Program Report to Congress, 2005. Also see—http:// 

www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/index.html. 

81Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of 

Environmental Change. Environmental Science and 

Technology 2011, 45, 1187–1894. 

82U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and 

Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria: Lists 

of 2010 Census Urban Areas, http://

www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_

all.xls. 

or the environment. It is scientifically based 

and defines the boundary between the lowest 

observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) and 

the no observed adverse effect level 

(NOAEL). It is considered to be the level of 

exposure just below that most likely to result 

in a defined and identifiable but minimal 

effect. The reference levels have no safety 

factors applied to them, as they are related 

directly to the LOAEL, and are the most 

conservative estimates of the effect level. 

High concentrations of HF in the air 

have also been linked to fluorosis in 

livestock. However, the HF 

concentrations at which fluorosis in 

livestock occur are higher than those at 

which plant damage begins. Therefore, 

the benchmarks for plants are protective 

of both plants and livestock. 

For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

facilities, the environmental risk screen 

indicated that the area-weighted average 

modeled concentration of HCl around 

each facility (i.e., the area-weighted 

average concentration of all offsite data 

points in the modeling domain) did not 

exceed the ecological benchmark. In 

addition, the ecological benchmark was 

not exceeded at any offsite receptor 

location for any facility. For HF, the 

environmental risk screen indicated that 

the area-weighted average modeled 

concentration of HF around each Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing facility did not 

exceed the ecological benchmark. There 

were multiple facilities with modeled 

concentrations of HF at offsite receptor 

locations that exceeded the ecological 

benchmark, but the area over which the 

value was exceeded was no greater than 

1 percent of the offsite modeling domain 

for each facility, indicating that there 

would not be any significant or 

widespread environmental effects. 

For BSCP Manufacturing facilities, the 

environmental risk screen indicated that 

the area-weighted average modeled 

concentrations of HCl and HF around 

each facility (i.e., the area-weighted 

average concentration of all offsite data 

points in the modeling domain) did not 

exceed the ecological benchmarks. In 

addition, the area over which the HCl or 

HF benchmarks were exceeded was less 

than 1 percent of the offsite modeling 

domain for each facility in the category, 

indicating that there would not be any 

significant or widespread environmental 

effects. 

The EPA did not conduct an 

assessment of the potential for 

emissions of HCl to cause acidification 

in close proximity to the sources in this 

category. Acid deposition, more 

commonly known as acid rain, 

primarily occurs when emissions of SO2

and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the 

atmosphere (with water, oxygen, and 

oxidants) to form various acidic 

compounds.80 Although some studies 

indicate that HCl emissions could 

contribute to acidification around 

emission sources in certain 

environments,81 its overall effect 

relative to NOX and SO2 emissions 

would be small. In addition, the 

commenter did not provide any data to 

support their assertion that the 

proposed standards would result in the 

acidification of the ecosystems in close 

proximity to BSCP and structural clay 

products manufacturing facilities. 

4. Cumulative Effects 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the EPA did not fully 

consider the cumulative effects of 

exposure to HAP when proposing the 

health-based standard under CAA 

section 112(d)(4). The commenter 

asserted that the agency assumed there 

are no cumulative health and 

environmental impacts of concern and 

argued the EPA cannot ensure that its 

proposed standards include an ample 

margin of safety without properly 

accounting for the additive and/or 

synergistic effects of multiple pollutants 

and the cumulative effects of nearby 

emissions. 

Another commenter stated that the 

EPA made no adjustments to the HBEL 

it selected to account for the potential 

for harm from exposures other than to 

the amounts of HCl, HF, and Cl2 it 

proposed to allow. Specifically, the EPA 

must consider emissions of HCl, HF, 

and Cl2 and other pollutants with 

biologically similar endpoints (i.e., that 

cause respiratory harm) from sources in 

the source category as well as from any 

co-located sources and other stationary 

or mobile sources located such that their 

emissions affect people who are also 

exposed to the emissions subject to the 

NESHAP. The commenter asserted that 

the EPA cannot lawfully set limits ‘‘with 

an ample margin of safety’’ when it 

ignores other sources of exposure and 

cumulative health effects. The 

commenter asserted that, to protect 

exposed populations, the regulated 

sources must reduce their emissions to 

a level that ensures the total 

concentration of pollutants will remain 

below the pollutants’ respective health 

thresholds. The commenter asserted that 

the EPA’s decision to ignore the impact 

of other emissions and background 

concentrations in the implementation of 

the HBEL is therefore arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, and 

otherwise not in accordance with law. 

If the ambient concentration of a 

particular pollutant is already at or near 

the health threshold, the commenter 

asserted that an additional source of that 

pollutant or another pollutant with a 

biologically similar endpoint can push 

the exposure over the threshold, even if 

the additional source emits the 

pollutant at low concentrations. The 

total risk that is unacceptable for the 

most-exposed person in each source 

category must be reduced to consider 

the cumulative effect of these additional 

exposures and to create a total risk from 

all regulated source categories. The 

commenter stated that EPA’s assessment 

of cumulative risks posed by HCl, HF, 

and Cl2 emissions ignored emissions 

from co-located sources (for BSCP 

kilns), nearby sources and all other 

potential sources that could contribute 

to background levels. The commenter 

noted that the EPA has emissions 

information about co-located and nearby 

sources in its own databases but failed 

to evaluate whether cumulative 

exposures would exceed the health 

thresholds and to consider combined 

exposures. The commenter reviewed 

reports from the EPA’s Enforcement and 

Compliance History Online (ECHO) 

Web site for a number of BSCP and clay 

ceramics facilities and provided notes 

on other major source facilities in close 

proximity. The commenter stated that 

the EPA’s justifications regarding 

cumulative nearby emissions are legally 

inadequate and factually inaccurate. 

The commenter stated that general 

assertions that other operations are not 

‘‘commonly’’ co-located with BSCP and 

clay ceramics facilities, that such 

facilities are ‘‘typically’’ located on large 

tracts of land, and that facilities are set 

back from property lines in rural areas 

are insufficient to set the emissions 

standard at a level that protects all 

people living near such facilities. 

The commenter stated that 

information in the EPA’s own databases 

demonstrates that BSCP and clay 

ceramics facilities are not 

predominantly located in rural, sparsely 

populated areas, as the EPA assumes. 

Many of the BSCP facilities are located 

in urban areas, including Boral Bricks in 

Terre Haute, Indiana; Hanson Brick in 

Columbia, South Carolina; General 

Shale Brick in Denver, Colorado; and 

Cherokee Brick & Tile in Macon, 

Georgia.82 Similarly, in the clay 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

83U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and 

Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria, 

https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urbanrural-2010.html (revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching 

plant location by city listed in address). 

84Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, 

U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Adm’r, U.S. EPA re: 

Review of EPA’s Draft, EPA–SAB–10–007 at 6 (May 

7, 2010). 

85CalEPA, OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts at 19– 

21, 25 (describing total ‘‘pollution burden’’ as sum 

of exposures, public health effects, and 

environmental effects); EPA, Concepts, Methods 

and Data Sources for Cumulative Health Risk 

Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and 

Effects, at 4–42 to 4–46 (Aug. 2007). 

86Responses to Public Comments on EPA’s 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units, vol. 1. Docket Item No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20126. 

87U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA–452/R–09– 

006. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291– 

0044. 

ceramics source category, only two of 

the sources are located in areas 

considered ‘‘rural’’ by the United States 

Census Bureau: American Marazzi Tile 

in Sunnyvale, Texas, and the Kohler 

Wisconsin Plant outside of Sheboygan, 

Wisconsin.83

The commenter stated that the EPA’s 

assessment of cumulative risks does not 

meet generally accepted good practices 

in risk assessment. The SAB 

recommended in May 2010 that the EPA 

incorporate ‘‘aggregate and cumulative 

risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area’’ into its risk 

analysis.84 The commenter stated that 

the EPA must assess the total and 

cumulative risk burden, rather than only 

looking at each type of risk in a discrete, 

separate way, and the EPA should be 

integrating its assessments and 

performing a ‘‘comprehensive risk 

assessment’’ as the NAS has 

emphasized. After first assessing the 

total cancer, chronic non-cancer, and 

acute risks, for both inhalation and 

multipathway exposure, the EPA also 

must assess the total risks.85 The EPA 

must aggregate health risk for each 

pollutant, and each type of health risk, 

to create a cumulative risk 

determination for an individual with 

maximum exposure. Without a 

combined health risk metric, the EPA 

cannot make an ample margin of safety 

determination that is based on the full 

picture of health risk for these source 

categories. 

Finally, the commenter stated that 

this proposal is contrary to the EPA’s 

recent conclusion in its regulation of 

power plant electric generating units 

that ‘‘the potential cumulative public 

health and environmental effects of acid 

gas emissions’’ did not allow for CAA 

section 112(d)(4) standards.86 In that 

rulemaking, the EPA did not receive 

facility-specific emissions information 

for all the acid gases from units in the 

source category, co-located sources, and 

all nearby sources. The EPA concluded 

that ‘‘cumulative impacts of acid gases 

on public health were not assuaged by 

the comments received.’’ The 

commenter stated that the EPA did not 

consider that information in this 

rulemaking either, and just as in the 

power plant rulemaking, HBEL are not 

lawful. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the EPA did not 

consider the potential impacts of nearby 

BSCP and clay ceramics facilities or 

other nearby facilities in the 

determination of the HBEL for each 

source category. The limit reflects the 

impacts of all facilities in the source 

category. While the risk assessment did 

not perform a detailed modeling 

analysis of other nearby facilities, based 

on a proximity analysis of sources 

emitting acid gases, the EPA concludes 

that the emissions from these facilities 

would not have significantly impacted 

the analysis for several reasons. First, 

the limit reflects a hazard index (HI) less 

than or equal to one at the highest 

impacted receptor at each facility. For 

source categories like BSCP and clay 

ceramics where emission release heights 

are low, the highest impacted receptor 

is always very near (e.g., shares a 

common fenceline) the facility, and 

ambient concentrations fall quickly with 

distance from the source. Because of 

this, other facilities would have to be 

very near a BSCP or clay ceramics 

facility and have relatively high 

emissions to have any significant impact 

on the receptor with the highest 

estimated concentration from the BSCP 

or clay ceramics emissions. As in risk 

assessments performed under the Risk 

and Technology Review program, the 

EPA did not model the nearby sources 

in the National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) because that inventory has not 

received the same level of review and 

quality assurance that the BSCP 

emissions have for the purposes of this 

rulemaking. 

Although the EPA did not model the 

other nearby facilities, the EPA did 

compare the location of all sources 

emitting acid gases with the locations of 

the BSCP and clay ceramics facilities. 

The EPA found that only four facilities 

emitted acid gases within 1 kilometer of 

any BSCP facility. Beyond 1 kilometer, 

we would expect very little coincidental 

impacts from multiple low level sources 

emitting the same pollutants. The 

largest of these facilities emitted less 

than 12 tpy of HCl-equivalent 

emissions, or less than 5 percent of the 

emissions limit. The estimated HI for 

this BSCP facility was 0.6, so an 

increase of 5 percent in emissions 

would result in an increase in HI of at 

most 5 percent and, thus, not increase 

the HI above a value of 1. There are no 

other sources emitting acid gases within 

1 kilometer of any clay ceramics facility. 

Also, for the BSCP plant with the 

highest estimated HI, there are no other 

acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI 

within 5 kilometers of the facility. For 

the clay ceramics plant with the highest 

estimated HI, there are no other acid gas 

emissions indicated in the NEI within 

10 kilometers of the facility. Thus, we 

would not expect emissions of acid 

gases from other sources to contribute 

significantly at the receptors where the 

maximum HI occurs due to BSCP or 

clay ceramic emissions, and the HI at 

these receptors would not exceed 1. 

5. Risk Assessment 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the Human Exposure Model (HEM–3) 

meteorological data used for dispersion 

calculations was insufficient because it 

included data for only 1 year (2011) 

from only 824 meteorological stations. 

The commenter asserted that this 

provides a very limited snapshot of air 

quality data and, therefore, is 

insufficient to determine with 

confidence that exposures at the 

proposed emissions standards pose ‘‘no 

risk’’ of adverse health effects. The 

commenter stated that it is unlawful and 

arbitrary to set CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standards without more extensive air 

quality information. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the meteorological data 

were insufficient to perform the risk 

assessment. Although 5 years of 

meteorological data are preferred for 

assessing chronic exposures and risks, 

we use a single year (2011) of 

meteorological data in our risk 

assessments because of model run times 

for the Human Exposure Model (HEM– 

3) air dispersion model (AERMOD). 

Because we frequently run AERMOD for 

an entire source category with many 

individual emissions points and for 

many receptors, using 5 years of 

meteorological data would increase 

already significant model run times by 

a factor of five compared to a single 

year. In a sensitivity analysis of the 

impact of using a single year of 

meteorological data compared to 5 

years,87 we found that modeled 

concentrations differed by less than 10 

percent on average and, thus, the use of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65499 

88Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, 

U.S. EPA, to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA 

re: Review of EPA’s Draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 

Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I 

Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 

Manufacturing’’ at 4. May 7, 2010. 

1 year of meteorological data is not 

likely to appreciably affect the results of 

the risk assessment. 

The meteorological data we used were 

obtained from the Automated Surface 

Observing Systems (ASOS) program, 

which is a joint effort of the National 

Weather Service (NWS), the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), and the 

Department of Defense (DOD). The 

ASOS serves as the nation’s primary 

surface weather observing network and 

is designed to support weather forecast 

activities and aviation operations and, at 

the same time, support the needs of the 

meteorological, hydrological, and 

climatological research communities. 

With the largest and most modern 

complement of weather sensors, ASOS 

has significantly expanded the amount 

of available meteorological information. 

The ASOS works non-stop, updating 

observations every minute, 24 hours a 

day, every day of the year. The ASOS 

is installed at more than 900 airports 

across the country, and our 

meteorological library for the year 2011 

includes all of these that are without a 

significant number of missing hours 

(824 stations). 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the EPA’s modeling understates 

chronic health risk by assuming that 

chronic exposure to HAP from BSCP 

and clay ceramic manufacturing sources 

occurs at the census block centroid and 

not at the facility fence or property line. 

The commenters stated that exposures 

are likely to be higher for people living 

closest to the plants, especially because 

census blocks can cover a large area and 

the center of a census block is almost 

always farther away from the facility 

than the facility’s property line. One 

commenter noted that even if the area 

near the property line is not developed, 

over time homes and businesses could 

locate closer to the facility. While it is 

possible that population distribution is 

homogenous over a census block, the 

commenter stated this assumption is not 

necessarily accurate in considering the 

predicted impacts from the location of 

a source. 

One commenter stated that no effort 

was made to move receptor points 

closer to the facility to assess chronic or 

cancer risk, even in those instances 

where local residents live nearer to a 

facility than the geographic centroid of 

the census block. This conflicts with the 

recommendation of the SAB, which has 

urged the EPA to consider ‘‘specific 

locations of residences.’’ 88 The 

commenter stated that the EPA failed to 

adjust receptor points for residents 

living on the fence-line even though the 

HEM–AERMOD system allows for such 

an adjustment, and that such an 

adjustment was appropriately made for 

the estimation of acute health risks (see, 

e.g., 79 FR 75644). The commenter 

stated that the EPA cannot justify failing 

to analyze chronic health effects in a 

similar manner. 

Another commenter agreed and stated 

that the EPA can use HEM–3 to identify 

the maximum individual risk at any 

point in a census block that is within a 

50-kilometer radius from the center of 

the modeled facility. The commenter 

recommended the EPA not use the 

predicted chronic exposures at the 

census block centroid as a surrogate for 

the exposure concentrations for all 

people living in that block; instead, the 

EPA should use the maximum 

individual risk in its risk assessments, 

irrespective of its location in the census 

block. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that we relied 

solely on the census block centroids as 

receptors for human exposure. As we 

have noted in the development of RTR 

regulations, in a national-scale 

assessment of lifetime inhalation 

exposures and health risks from 

facilities in a source category, it is 

appropriate to identify exposure 

locations where it may be reasonably 

expected that an individual will spend 

a majority of his or her lifetime. Further, 

in determining chronic risks, it is 

appropriate to use census block 

information on where people actually 

reside, rather than points on a fenceline, 

to locate the estimation of exposures 

and risks to individuals living near such 

facilities. 

Census blocks are the finest resolution 

available as part of the nationwide 

population data (as developed by the 

U.S. Census Bureau); each is typically 

comprised of approximately 50 people, 

or about 20 households. In the EPA risk 

assessments, the geographic centroid of 

each census block containing at least 

one person is used to represent the 

location where all the people in that 

census block live. The census block 

centroid with the highest estimated 

exposure then becomes the location of 

maximum exposure, and the entire 

population of that census block is 

assumed to experience the maximum 

individual risk. In some cases, because 

actual residence locations may be closer 

to or farther from facility emission 

points, this may result in an 

overestimate or underestimate of the 

actual annual concentrations (although 

there is no systematic bias for average 

levels). Given the relatively small 

dimensions of census blocks in densely 

populated areas, there is little 

uncertainty introduced by using the 

census block centroids in lieu of actual 

residence locations. There is the 

potential for more uncertainty when 

census blocks are larger, although there 

is still no systematic bias. The EPA 

concludes that the most appropriate 

locations at which to estimate chronic 

exposures and risks are the census block 

centroids because: (1) Census blocks are 

the finest resolution available in the 

national census data, (2) facility 

fencelines do not usually represent 

locations where chronic exposures are 

likely and (3) there is no bias introduced 

into the estimate of the MIR by using 

census block centroid locations. In 

addition, in its peer review of the 

methodologies used to estimate risks as 

part of the RTR rulemaking efforts, the 

EPA’s SAB endorsed this approach. 

In addition to the approach described 

above, the EPA recognizes that where a 

census block centroid is located on 

industrial property or is large and the 

centroid is less likely to be 

representative of the block’s residential 

locations, the block centroid may not be 

the appropriate surrogate. For BSCP 

facilities, in cases where a census block 

centroid was within 300 meters of any 

emission source (and therefore possibly 

on facility property), we viewed aerial 

images of the facility to determine 

whether the block centroid was likely 

located on facility property. Likewise, 

we examined aerial images of all large 

census blocks within 1 kilometer of any 

emission source. If the block centroid 

did not represent the residential 

locations within that block, we 

relocated it to better represent them 

and/or we added additional receptors 

for residences nearer to the facility than 

the centroid. For this source category, 

we relocated 14 census blocks that 

appeared to be on facility property or 

were otherwise not representative of the 

population within the block, and we 

modeled an additional 15 receptors in 

cases where the single block centroid 

was inadequate to characterize the 

population within the census blocks. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA’s risk assessment did not 

account for the synergistic health effects 

from the potential exposure to multiple 

acid gas pollutants. Specifically, the 

EPA did not demonstrate that no health 

effects would occur if a person is 

chronically exposed to a combination of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

89U.S. EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk 

Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. EPA–630–R–98– 

002. September 1986. 90U.S. EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for 

Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical 

Mixtures. August 2000. 91U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 2010. 

Review of EPA’s draft entitled, ‘‘Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 

Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board with Case Studies—MACT I 

Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 

Manufacturing.’’ May 7, 2010. Available at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

92OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity 

Summaries, at 278. CalEPA made it clear that its 

REL is for ‘‘[i]ncreased bone density (skeletal 

fluorosis),’’ that the NOAEL was for ‘‘chronic 

skeletal fluorosis,’’ and that ‘‘[c]hanges in bone 

density . . . appear[s] to be the most sensitive 

health effect for chronic exposure.’’ OEHHA, 

Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 272, 278– 

79. The principal study on which the REL is based 

did observe an increase in the incidence of acute 

respiratory disease, too, id. at 271, but the REL was 

not primarily based on that health effect. 

HCl, HF, and Cl2, even if the sum of the 

exposures (converted into ‘‘equivalent’’ 

units) does not exceed the ‘‘HClequivalent’’ limit. The commenter also 

argued the EPA failed to provide 

evidence showing that the acid gases 

would not have synergistic effects that 

could cause harm at a chronic exposure 

concentration that is lower than the RfC, 

REL, or MRL of each pollutant. The 

commenter asserted the EPA did not 

seek outside peer review by the SAB or 

other body or request public comment 

on its use of dose-response values to 

exchange exposures of one acid gas 

pollutant for another prior to proposing 

use of ‘‘HCl-equivalents’’ standards. 

The commenter stated that since the 

EPA based the ratio for comparing HF 

and Cl2 emissions to HCl emissions on 

the RfC, REL or MRL values, and those 

values are uncertain and flawed (see 

previous comments in this section V.A, 

explaining that values were not based 

on a NOAEL, and the EPA has ‘‘low’’ 

confidence in the HCl RfC), the HClequivalent method cannot assure ‘‘an 

ample margin of safety.’’ The 

commenter asserted that CAA section 

112(d)(4) requires the EPA to set 

separate standards for HCl and HF, and 

the EPA’s decision to set a HClequivalent emissions standard is 

unlawful and arbitrary. 

Response: The EPA believes that 

groups of chemicals can behave 

antagonistically or synergistically, such 

that combined exposure can either 

cause less or more harm, depending on 

the chemicals. To address pollutant 

mixtures in the determination of the 

HBEL, the EPA generally used the same 

methodology used in RTR assessments, 

which is to follow the EPA’s mixture 

guidelines.89 90 This methodology has 

been formally peer reviewed by the 

SAB.91 Following the mixture 

guidelines, the EPA aggregated 

noncancer hazard quotients (HQs) of 

HAP that act by similar toxic modes of 

action or that affect the same target 

organ. This process creates, for each 

target organ, a target-organ-specific 

hazard index (TOSHI), defined as the 

sum of HQs for individual HAP that 

affect the same organ or organ system. 

All TOSHI calculations were based 

exclusively on effects occurring at the 

‘‘critical dose’’ (i.e., the lowest dose that 

produces adverse health effects). The 

EPA actually calculated the HBEL 

conservatively by including HF in the 

calculation of equivalent emissions even 

though it affects a different target organ 

than HCl and Cl2, thereby allowing the 

development of a single emissions limit 

for all acid gases. The conservatism in 

the limit due to the inclusion of 

pollutants with different target organ 

systems would have the effect of 

ameliorating potential synergism of the 

acid gases. 

6. Ample Margin of Safety 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the EPA’s decision to set an HClequivalent HBEL, rather than set 

separate HBEL for HCl, HF, and Cl2. The 

commenter stated that, by setting one 

‘‘HCl-equivalent emissions’’ limit at 250 

tpy (57 lb/hr) for BSCP tunnel kilns and 

600 tpy (140 lb/hr) for clay ceramics 

sources, each source is free to emit 

whatever combination of HCl, HF, and 

Cl2 it would like, provided the aggregate 

of the ‘‘HCl-equivalent emissions’’ does 

not exceed the limit. The commenter 

also noted that the HCl-equivalent HBEL 

for clay ceramics does not include Cl2

and requested that the EPA explain how 

it converted Cl2 into HCl-equivalent 

emissions. 

The commenter stated that CAA 

section 112(d)(2) mandates that the EPA 

‘‘shall require the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of the hazardous 

air pollutants subject to this section.’’ 

The commenter asserted that it is 

unlawful for the EPA not to set an 

emissions limit for a CAA section 112- 

listed pollutant (Nat’l Lime Ass’n, 233 

F.3d at 634) and concluded that even if 

the EPA believes the health risks posed 

by HF and Cl2 emissions can be 

translated into HCl-equivalent units, the 

proposed ‘‘HCl-equivalent’’ limit 

contravenes the EPA’s obligation to set 

CAA section 112(d) standards for each 

pollutant. 

The commenter also stated that the 

EPA’s approach raises questions about 

whether the use of ‘‘HCl-equivalents’’ 

results in limits that protect people 

against all of a pollutant’s health risks 

with ‘‘an ample margin of safety,’’ as 

required by CAA section 112(d)(4). The 

commenter argued that because 

pollutants cause different adverse health 

effects, they are not ‘‘equivalent’’ 

pollutants that cause ‘‘equivalent’’ 

health effects at ‘‘equivalent’’ 

concentrations of exposure. The 

commenter further argued the RfC for 

HCl is based on a study of respiratory 

toxicity and is meant to protect 

individuals against respiratory harms 

from chronic exposures, while the REL 

used for HF is based on a study of 

skeletal fluorosis (increased bone 

density) and is meant to protect 

individuals against skeletal harm from 

chronic exposures.92 The commenter 

noted that the EPA focused only on the 

respiratory harm caused by the 

pollutants, when skeletal harm is the 

most sensitive effect for HF, and the 

EPA failed to explain why skeletal harm 

caused by a certain quantity of HF can 

be converted into respiratory harm 

caused by HCl. 

The commenter also noted that the 

EPA does not claim to be using HCl as 

a surrogate for HF or Cl2. The 

commenter stated that the EPA 

previously stated that HCl cannot act as 

a surrogate for the other acid gases 

because pollutants that act on humans 

in different manners, at different doses, 

cannot stand in for one another (see 76 

FR 25049 and 75 FR 32031). 

Another commenter expressed 

concern the HCl-equivalent emissions 

limit could mask exposures or 

emissions of concern for the most toxic 

gas because the comparison would be 

dominated by a higher concentration 

pertinent to the less toxic gases. The 

commenter asserted that there is no 

analysis that justifies this combined 

metric and noted it would be more 

justifiable if the substances were in the 

same order of magnitude for potential 

potency. The commenter recommended 

that the EPA consider whether these 

gases could contribute to the acid 

component of ambient air that is 

thought to potentially contribute to 

cancer and other effects because these 

impacts appear not to have been 

considered by the EPA. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ assertion that the HBEL 

cannot be based on equivalent 

emissions of a single pollutant. For the 

BSCP Manufacturing rulemaking, the 

EPA used an approach specific for this 

NESHAP to set health-protective 

emissions limits that would account for 

the multiple acid gas pollutants emitted 

by the BSCP facilities. By converting the 

emissions of each acid gas or 

combination of acid gases (HCl, Cl2 and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65501 

93 Mountain Commc’ns v. FCC, 355 F.3d 644, 

648–49 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agency must ‘‘explain how 

its position can be reconciled’’ with statutory 

requirements). 

94Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 

(1971) defines ‘‘margin’’ as ‘‘a spare amount or 

measure or degree allowed or given for 

contingencies or special situations’’ and ‘‘ample’’ as 

‘‘generous or more than adequate in size, scope, or 

capacity.’’ 

95S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 171. 

96See, e.g., EPA, Sulfuryl Fluoride; Proposed 

Order Granting Objections to Tolerances and 

Denying Request for a Stay, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

3422, 3427 (Jan. 19, 2011) (explaining use of MOE). 

97See, e.g., Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 598 F.2d 62, 

81 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that the phrase ‘ample 

margin of safety’ in the Clean Water Act’s toxic 

provisions required the EPA to protect against as 

yet unidentified risks to human health, including 

those ‘‘which research has not yet identified’’). 

HF) to an HCl-equivalent emission, the 

EPA can estimate a single exposure 

concentrations for comparison with the 

HCl reference value (RfC). If the ratio of 

HCl exposure concentration to the HCl 

RfC value remains at or below 1, the 

HBEL (HCl-equivalent emissions) would 

ensure that the threshold values for any 

individual or combination of acid gases 

would not be exceeded (i.e., remain at 

or below 1). The EPA used the same 

approach to convert emissions of HF to 

an HCl-equivalent and determine the 

HBEL for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP; the only 

difference is that there are no valid Cl2

emissions data for clay ceramics 

facilities, so Cl2 is not included in the 

HBEL. 

Comment: Two commenters generally 

supported the proposed HBEL and 

stated that the EPA has conclusively 

demonstrated that the proposed HBEL 

would provide an ample margin of 

safety for HCl, HF, and Cl2 emissions 

from affected facilities. As the EPA 

explained in the proposal, the analysis 

was based on site specific data from 

each tunnel kiln, and the proposed 

HBEL was developed at a level that 

would result in an HQ of 1 at the worstcase facility. Because the potential risks 

at facilities other than the worst-case 

facility are predicted to be well below 

1, the commenters stated that this 

analysis assures that an ample margin of 

safety will be provided for the ‘‘worst 

case’’ facility in the industry and more 

than an ample margin will be provided 

for all other affected facilities. 

Conversely, another commenter 

contended that the EPA’s proposed 

HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) does 

not include ‘‘an ample margin of 

safety.’’ The commenter disagreed with 

the approach the EPA used to determine 

the CAA section 112(d)(4) limits. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

by setting the limits at precisely the 

same level as the threshold value, the 

EPA proposed to allow plants to emit 

acid gas pollution that would expose 

people to amounts of pollution that 

reach threshold levels. 

The commenter stated that these 

limits do not include any ‘‘margin of 

safety,’’ let alone an ‘‘ample’’ one, as the 

EPA is required to include for CAA 

section 112(d)(4) standards. The 

commenter expressed concern that 

under the EPA’s approach, even the 

slightest uncertainty in the EPA’s 

estimates or low background levels of 

pollution can place health at risk 

because plants can emit at the health 

threshold. The commenter stated that 

the EPA did not explain how these 

limits would protect public health with 

‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ 93 The 

commenter asserted that a margin of 

safety is supposed to provide additional 

safety and account for uncertainty and 

variability that might result in harm to 

individuals below the threshold. The 

commenter further stated that an 

‘‘ample’’ margin of safety must assure 

not only extra room for safety, but a 

‘‘generous’’ margin for safety.94

The commenter noted that a TOSHI 

(which is the sum of the HQs) of ‘‘one’’ 

does not necessarily represent a safe 

level of exposure. The commenter 

asserted the EPA characterizes a TOSHI 

or HQ of ‘‘one’’ or less as exposures that 

‘‘are not likely to cause adverse health 

effects’’ (79 FR 75643), but did not 

provide any explanation why this level 

would meet the statutory standard. 

According to the commenter, Congress 

intended the standard to be set at a level 

at which there is ‘‘no risk’’ of ‘‘adverse 

health effects,’’ plus ‘‘an ample margin 

of safety (and not considering cost).’’ 95

For these reasons, the commenter 

concluded that the proposed limits do 

not comply with the CAA and could put 

public health at risk. 

The commenter also expressed 

concern that the EPA did not take steps 

to adjust the limits to reflect the 

uncertainties regarding health exposures 

and effects. The EPA has factored in 

uncertainties and vulnerability factors 

in other rulemakings, such as when 

determining a Target Margin of 

Exposure under the FQPA, where the 

EPA considered whether risks below the 

Target Margin of Exposure warranted 

increased scrutiny and changes to 

allowable exposures.96 The commenter 

also stated that the EPA’s proposed 

limits would allow human exposures to 

exceed the level that CalEPA has 

identified is the safety minimum. 

Allowing human exposure to HCl 

concentrations above a threshold a state 

agency determined may cause 

respiratory harm, the commenter 

contended, would not provide the 

ample margin of safety required by law. 

The commenter further stated that the 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ language in 

CAA section 112(d)(4) requires that any 

standard that is set under this authority 

must be sufficient to protect against 

significant unforeseen consequences.97

The commenter stated that because the 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ requirement is 

meant to protect against risks that have 

not yet been identified in research, a 

CAA section 112(d)(4) standard cannot 

be justified on grounds that the EPA 

does not have sufficient evidence about 

the health risks posed by a HAP or does 

not have the time or inclination to 

review the evidence that is available. 

Response: For several reasons, the 

EPA disagrees with the commenter who 

stated that the HBEL does not include 

an ample margin of safety. First, the 

limit is based on the single facility in 

the source category with the worst-case 

combination of meteorology and 

distance to nearest residential receptor 

that leads to the highest ambient 

concentrations. While the EPA estimates 

that the limit reflects an HI of one at this 

facility, the HI at most other facilities 

would be significantly lower, with 

approximately 90 percent of the 

facilities having an estimated HI less 

than or equal to 0.5. Further as the 

standard is based on a 1-hour emission 

limit, in determining chronic impacts, 

the analysis conservatively assumes that 

each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for 

an entire year (8,760 hours). Also, the 

limit is based on estimated ambient 

concentrations and not exposure 

concentrations. Exposure concentrations 

are typically lower than ambient 

concentrations because they reflect that 

people’s activities (e.g., work, school) 

remove them from their residential 

exposure locations for significant 

amounts of time. For these reasons, the 

EPA concludes that the emission limit 

is health protective (i.e., exposures will 

remain below the threshold values) and 

this conservative exposure scenario is 

consistent with the ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ requirement in CAA section 

112(d)(4). 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the EPA underestimated 

acute health risks in the evaluation of 

the risk of acute harm from short-term 

exposures by ignoring variability in 

short-term emissions. The commenter 

noted that the EPA calculated the 1- 

hour emissions estimates for its 

modeling of acute harm by dividing the 

annual emissions level by 8,760 hours 

per year instead of using a default factor 

or emissions multiplier to account for 

higher-than-average short-term 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65502 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

98See, e.g., National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV 

Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Ingredient 

Production; and Polyether Polyols Production; 

Proposed Rule, 77 FR 1268, 1279 (Jan. 9, 2012) 

(finalized at 79 FR 17340 (Mar. 27, 2014); see also 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production, 79 FR 60238, 

60252 (Oct. 6, 2014) (applying ‘‘an emission 

adjustment factor’’ to ‘‘average annual hourly 

emission rates . . . to account for emission 

fluctuations due to normal facility operations’’); 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review 

for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, 78 FR 

66108, 66122 (Nov. 4, 2013) (applying ‘‘a 

conservative default emissions multiplier of 10 to 

estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the 

average rates’’ as part of EPA’s screening of ‘‘worstcase acute impacts’’); National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing, 76 

FR 72770, 72785 (Nov. 25, 2011) (applying an 

‘‘emissions multiplier of 3 to estimate the peak 

hourly emission rates from the average rates’’). 

emissions. The commenter noted actual 

emissions over a 1-hour period will at 

times exceed the average hourly 

emissions level used in the modeling. 

The commenter asserted the EPA did 

not explain how this approach captures 

peak short-term emissions levels or 

adequately protects people from shortterm exposures at levels above the 

average. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

has used emissions multipliers to scale 

up average hourly emissions in air 

dispersion modeling for other risk 

assessments.98 The commenter asserted 

that although emission multipliers in 

risk assessments still underestimate 

risk, these assessments show the EPA 

recognizes the need to use multipliers in 

assessing health risks from short-term 

emissions. The commenter stated that it 

is unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA 

not to use an emissions multiplier for 

estimating risk for this rulemaking. 

The commenter also stated that the 

EPA’s calculation of 1-hour emissions 

assumed plants are operating (and 

generating emissions) 24 hours per day, 

365 days per year. The commenter 

noted that averaging hourly emissions 

over the full calendar year produces 

lower hourly emissions than if the EPA 

had used each plant’s actual operating 

hours. The EPA has information about 

each plant’s operating hours and these 

data show many units are not operating 

over the full calendar year. By 

calculating the 1-hour emissions based 

on 8,760 operating hours, the 

commenter asserted the EPA 

underestimated the risks of acute 

exposures over shorter spans of time. 

The commenter stated that because 

the EPA used short-term emissions that 

are neither conservative nor realistic, 

the EPA cannot conclude the standard 

assures ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ 

The commenter stated that in two other 

recent rulemakings, the EPA found 

information on short-term HCl 

emissions was insufficient to allow the 

EPA to evaluate ‘‘whether a chronic 

health-based emission standard for HCl 

would ensure that acute exposures will 

not pose any health concerns.’’ (75 FR 

32031; 76 FR 25050). In these 

rulemakings, the commenter stated, the 

EPA did not proceed with risk-based 

standards due to the lack of this 

information. The commenter stated that 

the EPA is incorrectly proceeding with 

the proposed health-based standards 

without accounting for or quantifying 

peak short-term emissions. 

Response: The use of an emissions 

multiplier to convert annual emissions 

to peak 1-hour emissions (determination 

of peak emissions for comparison with 

1-hour health benchmarks) for acute 

(short-term) risk calculations was not 

necessary for this analysis, because the 

HBEL determined for the category is 

being promulgated as a mass of HClequivalent emitted per hour. Similarly, 

plant hours of operation need not be 

considered because the HBEL 

determined for the category is an hourly 

limit. As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule for BSCP, ‘‘To assure that 

no source emits more than the 250 tpy 

HCl-equivalent limit in a single hour, 

we propose setting the emissions limit 

at the hourly equivalent of 250 tpy (57 

lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)’’ (79 

FR 75644). Similarly, for clay ceramics 

manufacturing, ‘‘to assure that no source 

emits more than the 600 tpy HClequivalent limit in a single hour, we 

propose setting the emissions limit at 

the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy (140 lb/ 

hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)’’ (79 FR 

75661). 

The EPA concludes the risk analysis 

and subsequent standard meet an 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ in accordance 

with the CAA. The proposed HBEL for 

the entire source category is based on an 

emissions level corresponding to a 

maximum noncancer HI of one at the 

highest impacted facility. All other 

facilities would have a lower risk than 

the highest risk facility. Further, as the 

standard is based on a 1-hour emission 

limit, in determining chronic impacts, 

the analysis conservatively assumes that 

each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for 

an entire year (8,760 hours). 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the EPA’s evaluation of acute 

health risks, stating that the approach is 

inadequate and does not assure 

standards are based on a safe health 

threshold and include ‘‘an ample 

margin of safety.’’ Specifically, the 

commenter expressed concern that the 

proposed HBEL are based on the 

chronic dose-response information and 

not on thresholds for acute health risks. 

The commenter noted the EPA 

approximated exposures, used those 

estimates to develop HQ values, and 

concluded ‘‘there is low potential for 

acute risk’’ when the HQ values are less 

than or equal to one. If values above one 

were identified, then the EPA examined 

additional information to determine 

whether there was a potential for 

‘‘significant acute risks’’ for those living 

near the facility. The commenter noted 

that the EPA did not explain why this 

method satisfies the CAA section 

112(d)(4) requirement that health-based 

standards be set at a level that ensures 

‘‘an amply margin of safety’’ for people 

living near the facility. The EPA’s 

evaluation is designed to determine 

whether any facilities pose ‘‘significant 

acute risks’’; however, the commenter 

stated that this is not the statutory 

standard, and such a determination 

would not signify that an ‘‘ample 

margin of safety’’ is included. 

The commenter stated that for HF, the 

EPA’s evaluation identified numerous 

plants at which there were potential 

acute health risks. Specifically, the EPA 

found 23 BSCP facilities exceeded the 

HQ value for HF, with nearly half of 

those facilities exceeding the value by 

four- or five-fold. For the clay ceramics 

category, the EPA found that eight 

facilities exceeded the HQ value for HF. 

The additional analysis the EPA 

performed to determine whether these 

facilities posed ‘‘significant acute risks’’ 

did not rule out the possibility of such 

‘‘significant acute risks.’’ For these 

facilities, the EPA focused its analysis 

on maximum offsite HQ values; 

however, the commenter noted that 

many of the maximum offsite HQ values 

exceed one, thereby indicating the 

potential for ‘‘significant acute risks’’ 

remained. The commenter asserted that 

the EPA provided no support for why 

values above one means there is no 

potential for ‘‘significant acute risks.’’ 

The commenter disagreed with the 

EPA’s assertion that there is no potential 

for ‘‘significant acute risks’’ because the 

risk assessment assumes there is a 

person present at the location and time 

where the maximum HQ value occurs 

and stated that relaxing conservative 

assumptions about exposure in 

individual instances is arbitrary and 

defeats the purpose of the evaluation. 

The EPA cannot pretend that the person 

is not present and ignore the potential 

for harm. The EPA’s statement that a 

facility is not likely to emit only HF 

similarly provides no assurance of 

safety. According to the commenter, the 

EPA relaxed an assumption in the 

model because the model predicted an 

outcome the EPA did not like. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65503 

99Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: 

Review of EPA’s Draft at 6. 

100U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical 

Specific Reference Values for Formaldehyde in 

Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect 

Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final 

Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and available 

on-line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

101Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon 

Nizich and Keith Barnett, EPA. ‘‘Additional 

documents.’’ Dated June 25, 2015. 

commenter stated the EPA provided no 

basis for its assertion that a facility is 

unlikely to emit only HF or explain why 

a combination of HF (for which the EPA 

found a potential for ‘‘significant acute 

risks’’), HCl, and Cl2 emissions would 

not still pose ‘‘significant acute risks.’’ 

The commenter stated that the EPA’s 

use of acute exposure guideline levels 

(AEGLs) and emergency response 

planning guidelines (ERPGs) to assess 

acute risks cannot assure that exposure 

presents ‘‘no risk’’ of health effects at 

those concentrations. The AEGL and 

ERPG values were created for 

emergency exposure scenarios. The 

commenter stated that levels defined for 

‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term 

exposures’’ and ‘‘emergency’’ chemical 

releases or accidents are not appropriate 

for measuring acute exposure risk. 

According to the SAB, indicated 

‘‘AEGL–2 and ERPG–2 values should 

never be used in residual risk 

assessments because they represent 

levels that if exceeded could cause 

serious or irreversible health effects.’’ 99

The commenter stated that because 

the AEGL and ERPG numbers would 

underestimate risk to the maximum 

exposed individual, AEGL and ERPG 

values do not indicate ‘‘safe’’ thresholds 

that protect health with ‘‘an ample 

margin of safety.’’ For these reasons, the 

commenter contends AEGL and ERPG 

values should not be used to set CAA 

section 112(d)(4) standards. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the EPA’s acute 

assessment includes arbitrary decisionmaking and does not reflect an ample 

margin of safety. The EPA is not 

required to regulate based solely on the 

results of a conservative acute screening 

scenario which assumes that a person 

will be present at a specific location and 

during worst-case meteorological 

conditions. Rather, this initial screening 

scenario is used as a starting point in 

the assessment of the potential for acute 

effects. 

For HCl and Cl2, the acute REL values 

for the pollutants are not estimated to be 

exceeded even when using the 

screening scenario, and the acute REL 

for HF is estimated to be exceeded only 

by a factor of two for seven facilities 

using the screening scenario. The other 

cases of higher exceedances mentioned 

by the commenter are situations where 

the locations of the exceedances are on 

facility property and, therefore, not 

considered for public health. The acute 

REL is defined by CalEPA as ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no adverse health effects are anticipated 

for a specified exposure duration. RELs 

are based on the most sensitive, 

relevant, adverse health effect reported 

in the medical and toxicological 

literature. RELs are designed to protect 

the most sensitive individuals in the 

population by the inclusion of 

uncertainty factors which are 

incorporated to address data gaps and 

uncertainties. 

Regarding the use of AEGL and ERPG 

values, the EPA does not rely 

exclusively upon these values for 

assessment of acute exposures. Rather, 

the EPA’s approach is to consider 

various acute health effect reference 

values, including the California REL, in 

assessing the potential for risks from 

acute exposures. To better characterize 

the potential health risks associated 

with estimated acute exposures to HAP, 

and in response to a key 

recommendation from the SAB’s peer 

review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment 

methodologies, we generally examine a 

wider range of available acute health 

metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do 

for our chronic risk assessments. This is 

in response to the SAB’s 

acknowledgement that there are 

generally more data gaps and 

inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays 100 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. Because 

HCl, HF, and Cl2 all have 1-hour REL 

values, the maximum estimated 1-hour 

concentrations were compared to these 

values to assess the potential for acute 

health effects. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the EPA’s risk analysis 

ignored exposures from emissions of 

HCl, HF, Cl2, and other pollutants with 

similar biological endpoints from units 

subject to the proposed work practice 

standards, including emissions during 

startup and shutdown, and emissions 

from BSCP periodic kilns and 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The 

commenter asserted that even though 

the EPA stated that the work practice 

standards are intended to minimize 

emissions, these sources are not 

included in the calculation of the CAA 

section 112(d)(4) standards, and 

exposures to emissions from these other 

sources will contribute to an 

individual’s cumulative health risks. 

The commenter asserted that the EPA 

does not know whether the proposed 

HBEL will provide ‘‘an ample margin of 

safety’’ once emissions from periods of 

startup and shutdown and emissions 

from BSCP periodic kilns and 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns are added to 

the levels of pollution permitted by the 

proposed standards. For this reason, the 

commenter stated that the proposed 

CAA section 112(d)(4) standards are 

unlawful and arbitrary. 

The commenter also stated that 

emissions during startup and shutdown 

are expected to be uncontrolled, because 

the EPA did not propose to require that 

BSCP and clay ceramics plants use 

APCD or other methods to reduce 

emissions (such as mandating the use of 

clean fuels) during these periods. The 

proposed work practice standards for 

periodic and shuttle kilns do not require 

control technology and, according to the 

commenter, are not anticipated to 

reduce emissions. 

Finally, the commenter stated that the 

only reason startup and shutdown 

periods and periodic and shuttle kilns 

are not subject to the proposed CAA 

section 112(d)(4) limits is because the 

EPA exempted them from CAA section 

112(d). The commenter stated that it is 

arbitrary to exclude those emissions 

from the health analysis solely because 

the EPA proposed to regulate those 

sources of emissions under a different 

subsection of the CAA. The commenter 

argued all exposures contribute to the 

risk of harm, regardless of whether they 

are CAA section 112(d)-regulated 

emissions or section CAA 112(h)- 

regulated emissions. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that 

emissions during periods of startup and 

shutdown and emissions from BSCP 

periodic kilns and sanitaryware shuttle 

kilns will exceed the numerical HBEL. 

Regarding the standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown, as noted in the 

preamble to the proposed rule and 

further documented in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291,101

temperature is the main factor affecting 

full production at BSCP plants. The kiln 

cars should be introduced into the kiln 

at a steadily increasing push rate to 

facilitate development of that specific 

kiln’s firing temperature profile. Since 

emissions are generated from the firing 

of the bricks and the fuel combusted, 

the EPA has concluded that the 

maximum magnitude of emissions will 

occur when all kiln cars have been 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65504 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

102For example, even assuming that lb/ton 

emissions are similar for BSCP periodic and tunnel 

kilns, a comparison of annual kiln design capacities 

(ton product/yr) for model BSCP periodic kilns and 

tunnel kilns indicates that annual capacities for 

periodic kilns are on average only 5 percent of 

annual capacities for tunnel kilns. (For the basis of 

this calculation, see the memorandum ‘‘Updated 

Inventory Database and Documentation for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Final 

Rule’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291 

and the memorandum ‘‘Final Rule: Documentation 

of Database and Responses to the 1997 Information 

Collection Request for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products’’ in Docket ID No. A–99–30.) In addition, 

in the BSCP industry, there are currently 120 

periodic kilns located at 15 facilities, compared to 

168 tunnel kilns at 84 facilities. In the sanitaryware 

industry sector, there are currently five first-fire 

shuttle kilns, compared to 11 first-fire tunnel kilns. 

loaded with the maximum number of 

bricks and the maximum amount of fuel 

is used. During startup, kiln operators 

will limit production until the kiln has 

heated enough to begin normal 

operation. This is the point whereby the 

standard transitions from a work 

practice to a numeric limit. The 

opposite process occurs during 

shutdown. Fuel use will decrease 

significantly so as to cool the kiln, and 

kiln operators will slow production to a 

stop. Since emissions will be lower 

below this point of maximum loading 

and fuel use, emissions will not rise 

above the emission limit for all 

pollutants, including the acid gas limits. 

The owner or operator of each kiln 

will be required to determine the startup 

production rate for the kiln. For kilns 

with an APCD, the owner or operator 

will determine the minimum inlet 

temperature for the APCD. For kilns 

that, through compliance testing once 

the compliance date has been reached, 

have shown they are emitting under the 

emission limits and thus do not have an 

APCD, the owner or operator will 

determine the product-specific kiln 

temperature profile that must be 

achieved before the kiln can reach full 

production. The startup standards will 

be tied to the startup production rate 

never being exceeded until the kiln 

reaches the minimum inlet temperature 

for the APCD or the product-specific 

kiln temperature profile, whichever is 

applicable. During shutdown, once the 

kiln falls below the minimum inlet 

temperature for the APCD or the 

product-specific kiln temperature 

profile, whichever is applicable, no 

additional product can be introduced. 

These temperature limits will be 

required to be included in the facility’s 

records and kept on site. Thus, for 

periods of startup and shutdown, the 

HBEL set for HCl, HF, and Cl2 will not 

be surpassed during startup and 

shutdown. 

In the case of sanitaryware shuttle 

kilns, the commenter is mistaken that 

we did not mandate the use of clean 

fuels. The rule does limit the fuels used 

to natural gas or equivalent, and also 

outlines work practice standards 

relative to temperature cycles and 

maintenance procedures designed to 

minimize HAP emissions (see Table 3 to 

subpart KKKKK). The use of clean fuels 

applies for all times the kiln is running, 

not just startup and shutdown. 

Therefore, the commenter is incorrect 

that we are not requiring the use of 

clean fuels for startup and shutdown 

relative to the operation of shuttle kilns. 

The EPA also disagrees that just 

because the proposed work practice 

standards for periodic and shuttle kilns 

do not reflect the use of any control 

technology, they are not anticipated to 

reduce emissions. As the commenter 

has stated elsewhere, control 

technologies are not the only means of 

limiting emissions. Control of 

parameters such as fuel, operating 

temperature, combustion conditions, 

and throughput are also effective means 

of limiting emissions, and these are the 

types of parameters the EPA considered 

when finalizing the work practice 

standards for periodic and shuttle kilns. 

As discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 

75662, CAA section 112(h)(1) states that 

the Administrator may prescribe a work 

practice standard or other requirements, 

consistent with the provisions of CAA 

sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases 

where, in the judgment of the 

Administrator, it is not feasible to 

enforce an emission standard. Section 

112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA further defines 

the term ‘‘not feasible’’ in this context 

to apply when ‘‘the application of 

measurement technology to a particular 

class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations,’’ which is the case here. 

There are fewer BSCP periodic kilns and 

first-fire sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

compared to tunnel kilns, and they tend 

to be low-emitting sources compared to 

tunnel kilns,102 so their emissions will 

not cause an exceedance of the health 

threshold. The work practice standards 

we are finalizing will serve to ensure 

that emissions from these sources 

continue to remain low. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

to create standards that assure ‘‘an 

ample margin of safety,’’ the EPA is 

required to build a margin into the 

HBEL for exposures to HCl, HF, Cl2, and 

other pollutants with similar biological 

endpoints resulting from (a) 

exceedances of the HCl, HF, and Cl2

standards, (b) violations of the work 

practice standards applicable during 

startup and shutdown, and (c) 

exceedances of other standards (e.g., 

MACT standards for non-Hg HAP 

metals) that restrict pollutants with 

similar biological endpoints. The 

commenter also stated that estimating 

short-term emissions by averaging 

annual emissions does not reflect 

emissions spikes that occur during plant 

malfunctions or upsets. The commenter 

stated that malfunctions and upsets 

increase emissions and thereby pose 

increased health risks that the EPA must 

consider. 

The commenter stated that relevant 

chronic exposures include exposures 

from exceedances and violations and 

noted that many exceedances, such as 

those from malfunctions and upsets, are 

likely to contribute significant 

emissions that can elevate an 

individual’s total exposures over time. 

The commenter also stated that the EPA 

explains malfunction events can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation (79 

FR 75626). The commenter stated that 

these emissions pose much higher shortterm risks and can accumulate and 

combine to increase public health 

impacts and risk and that guarding 

against the health risks of releases of 

large amounts of HF (for example) must 

be built into the HBEL through the 

margin of safety. The commenter stated 

that HF exhibits characteristics in some 

circumstances that can make it uniquely 

hazardous over large areas. For example, 

HF molecules may associate with one 

another (i.e., form larger molecules like 

H4F4, H6F6, H8F8) via hydrogen bonding 

and such molecules may form a cloud 

that is heavier than air, therefore less 

likely to disperse. 

The commenter stated that, by not 

accounting for exposures from 

exceedances, the EPA assumed that 

such exceedances will be zero and built 

in no additional protections in case 

exceedances do occur. The commenter 

claimed that there is no factual basis for 

assuming that 100 percent of BSCP and 

clay ceramics facilities will comply with 

each of the relevant emissions limits 

100 percent of the time. Over the long 

term and across the population of 

regulated facilities, the commenter 

noted that it is predictable that a 

number of exceedances will occur at 

facilities. The commenter stated it is 

unlawful to ignore emissions and the 

resulting health risks from those 

exceedances and argued the additional 

risk from exceedances should not be 

ignored in risk assessments. 

The commenter stated that EPA 

regularly uses statistical methods and 

probability factors to assess health risk 

due to exceedances and to set clean air 

standards, and the EPA has data 

available to calculate representative 

factors to assess the health risk from 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65505 

103See, e.g., EPA, Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online (ECHO), www.epa.gov/echo. 

malfunctions or can collect information 

on major sources’ malfunction and 

violation histories.103 If the EPA needs 

more refined data regarding these 

emissions, the commenter suggested the 

EPA may request additional data from 

sources. 

The commenter stated that it is 

irrelevant that exceedances are a result 

of a failure to comply with the law 

when the EPA is setting CAA section 

112(d)(4) standards, which must be set 

at a level that protects health. It does not 

matter to a person whether the pollution 

he or she is breathing is a result of a 

permitted or unpermitted release; the 

commenter argued the EPA cannot turn 

a blind eye to the reality that 

compliance with its standards is not 

perfect. 

Response: The HBEL was determined 

based on the assessment of acute affects 

at the worst-case facility with respect to 

meteorology and distance to receptor 

and is protective of most facilities even 

if they had SSM event emissions. Even 

for the worst-case facility, the SSM 

emissions event would need to be 

coincident with the worst-case 

meteorological conditions, which is not 

likely if SSM events are not frequent. 

For chronic risk, SSM emissions are not 

significant compared to the HBEL level, 

and most facilities are well below an HI 

of one with emissions at the HBEL level. 

The commenter is correct that the 

EPA did not include malfunctions and 

upsets emissions in setting emissions 

limits. As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule (79 FR 75626), 

malfunctions ‘‘are, by definition 

sudden, infrequent and not reasonably 

preventable failures of emissions 

control, process or monitoring 

equipment.’’ The preamble also stated 

that ‘‘accounting for malfunctions in 

setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. For these reasons, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘reasonably’ 

foreseeable.’’ It should also be noted 

that sources cannot conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction (40 CFR 63.8445(e) and 40 

CFR 63.8595(d)) and there are no 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS) in place in the BSCP 

industry. 

The EPA disagrees that it is required 

to evaluate the ample margin of safety 

provided by a CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standard based on the level of emissions 

that could occur during an exceedance 

of the standard caused by a malfunction 

or any other cause. When the EPA 

establishes a standard under CAA 

section 112(d)(4), the EPA evaluates the 

ample margin of safety based on what 

sources will emit when they are meeting 

the standard (which applies at all times 

including periods of malfunction) and 

does not include some additional 

margin of safety to compensate for 

periods of time that sources may violate 

the standard. This is consistent with 

how the EPA evaluates standards under 

CAA section 112(f)(2) (in that the EPA’s 

evaluation of the ample margin of safety 

under that review looks at the emissions 

allowed under the standard, not 

emissions that might occur when the 

standard is exceeded). 

Regarding the comment that the 

standard is not health protective for 

emissions of HF, the proposed rule 

determined the HCl equivalent 

emissions for HF by the ratio of the RfC 

value for each pollutant, such that a 250 

tpy emission of HCl is equivalent to 175 

tpy emissions of HF. By performing a 

risk analysis for each facility/kiln, the 

EPA demonstrated that these emissions 

limits are protective of both chronic and 

acute risks. 

Regarding the comment that HF 

exhibits release characteristics that may 

make it uniquely hazardous over large 

areas, the EPA notes that the commenter 

did not include data or information 

supporting their assertion that plumes 

of acid gases from BSCP facilities could 

become heavier than air. The 

commenter’s example case of the 

formation of dense clouds of acid gases 

is from studies performed on the 

vaporization of liquefied gaseous fuels 

from spills, and the commenter did not 

explain how this scenario is relevant to 

the emission of acid gases formed in 

BSCP kilns. In the absence of evidence 

suggesting that clouds of dense gases are 

formed from BSCP facilities, and 

without a suggested alternate modeling 

methodology, the EPA used its preferred 

model AERMOD for dispersion for 

BSCP facilities. 

7. Other Issues 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA must account for the variability 

in emissions measured by compliance 

testing to measure whether each plant’s 

emissions meet the HBEL because that 

testing does not capture a source’s 

variance in emissions performance over 

time. The commenter noted that the 

EPA already recognizes this fact for 

stack tests for technology-based 

standards. The EPA has stated that it 

lacks a high degree of confidence that 

stack tests capture variation in 

emissions over time, and the commenter 

noted that as a result of this variance, it 

can be expected that the compliance 

tests would not be accurate. The 

commenter asserted that if the EPA 

believes that measurement variability 

needs to be corrected for, then it is 

irrational and arbitrary to correct for it 

with one set of standards (MACT 

standards) and not another (healthbased standards), when they both rely 

upon emissions data from stack tests. 

The commenter noted that the EPA’s 

proposal to account for variability for 

MACT standards but not for compliance 

with the HBEL would result in weaker 

and less-protective standards in both 

cases. 

Response: Variability in emissions 

would not have a significant impact on 

the estimated risks associated with the 

HBEL. For chronic exposures and risks, 

the estimates are based on long-term 

(annual) emissions, so short-term 

emissions variability would not impact 

the estimates of chronic risks as long as 

the annual emissions, on average, do not 

exceed the limit. For acute exposures 

and risks, short-term emissions 

variability that causes emissions to 

exceed the 1-hour HBEL would increase 

the potential for acute health effects, but 

the likelihood of such effects is low 

because the emissions variability would 

have to occur at the small number of 

facilities we estimated as having the 

highest acute HQs based on the 

emissions limits, and the emissions 

variability would have to coincide with 

worst-case meteorological conditions 

even at those facilities to result in acute 

HQs higher than those we estimated 

based on the HBEL. Most facilities have 

acute HQ estimates significantly below 

one, so short-term emissions variability 

would have to be high (approximately 

60 percent higher for the median 

facility) for the estimated HQs to 

approach a value of one. 

The EPA also notes that the HBEL was 

not established using emissions data 

from stack tests. Therefore, there was no 

need to account for variability in setting 

the HBEL as was done for the Hg and 

non-Hg HAP metals standards. Instead, 

the standard was established at a 

conservative level to ensure that the 

HQs remain below one for all facilities. 

The EPA agrees that there would be 

variability in the test results used to 

demonstrate compliance with the rule, 

but as already noted in this response, 

short-term emissions variability would 

have to be high for the estimated HQs 

to approach a value of one. In addition, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65506 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

variability is not considered when 

comparing compliance testing results to 

any other emissions limit, so it would 

be inconsistent for the EPA to require 

owners and operators to adjust their test 

results before comparing those results to 

the HBEL. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the EPA should require fence-line 

ambient air quality monitoring that 

measures multiple pollutants in realtime or near real-time to ensure that 

people are not being exposed to ambient 

pollutant concentrations that exceed the 

proposed HBEL. The commenter 

recommended the EPA also require realtime public reporting of the monitoring 

data. 

In addition, the commenter suggested 

that the EPA should require facilities to 

submit monitoring plans, data, and 

corrective action plans for agency 

review and public comment. These 

requirements would ensure concerned 

community members have the ability to 

review and recommend improvements 

to monitoring plans before they are 

implemented and would enable the EPA 

to consider community concerns when 

deciding whether to approve a plan. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. Because stack emissions 

can travel for long distances and are at 

heights above where a fence-line 

monitors would measure, it is 

inappropriate to use fence-line 

monitoring for stack emissions. Fenceline monitoring is performed for fugitive 

emissions (see discussion of fence-line 

monitoring use on fugitive emissions at 

79 FR 36919, Petroleum Refinery Sector 

Risk and Technology Review and New 

Source Performance Standards; 

Proposed Rule). In response to the 

comment that the EPA should require 

all facilities to submit monitoring plans, 

data, and corrective action plans for 

agency review and public comment, the 

EPA notes that these requirements are 

indeed in the rule, as facilities are 

required to submit monitoring plans, 

data and corrective actions for the 

regulatory agency review. However, in 

most cases, these submissions are 

required to be sent to the delegated 

authority, and the follow-up to that 

review, is left to the discretion of the 

delegated authority. 

B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

1. MACT Floors 

a. Sources in MACT Floor Pool 

One commenter stated that the DC 

Circuit held that the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP published on 

May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26690) violated the 

CAA in a number of ways (Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). 

The court held that, in setting MACT 

floors for brick tunnel kilns, the EPA’s 

exclusion of kilns employing non-DLA 

controls from its ranking and 

identification of the best performing 

sources was unlawful because CAA 

section 112(d)(3) ‘‘requires floors based 

on the emission level actually achieved 

by the best performers (those with the 

lowest emission levels).’’ Id. In addition, 

the court recognized that factors other 

than pollution control technology affect 

performance (e.g., clay type), and the 

EPA cannot ignore such factors, even 

where the EPA finds that floors based 

on those factors would be unachievable. 

The commenter noted that the EPA is 

once again excluding best performing 

sources from its floor analysis and 

basing floors on a group of kilns using 

the EPA’s preferred control 

technologies, in contravention of the 

holding of Sierra Club, which is the 

decision to which this rulemaking is 

intended to be a response. In the 

proposed rule, prior to ranking the best 

performing sources for the BSCP tunnel 

kiln floors for PM (as a surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) for existing and 

new sources, the EPA removed all kilns 

without a FF-based APCD. Once 

removed, those kilns were not included 

in the ranking of best performing 

sources, and hence they were not 

considered for inclusion among the best 

performing 12 percent of sources (for 

the existing source floor) or the best 

controlled similar source (for the new 

source floor). The commenter asserted 

that the agency’s reprisal of a floor 

approach that the DC Circuit has already 

rejected repeatedly is not just unlawful, 

but amounts to contempt for the court’s 

authority. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that the EPA’s 

proposed approach to calculating PM 

surrogate MACT floors for kilns was 

illegal in that it impermissibly excluded 

certain kilns. However, at proposal, we 

asked for comment on this approach 

and requested additional data to support 

this approach, and we did not receive 

any such additional data. In addition, 

some of the test data for sources with 

FF-based APCD could not be used in the 

final rulemaking because it was 

discovered that the testing was not 

carried out in accordance with the 

appropriate test method. Therefore, we 

can no longer assert that we have 

emissions data for all BSCP kilns with 

FF-based APCD. Thus, the EPA did not 

use the approach challenged by the 

commenter to establish the MACT floors 

in the final rule. 

The EPA has amended the approach 

to developing PM surrogate MACT 

floors for reasons explained in section 

IV.A.1 of this preamble, so these 

comments are now moot. However, the 

EPA still believes the approach to 

identify the best performing sources has 

merit. When the EPA has data on every 

single controlled source in the category, 

and these data support that these 

sources are the best performing, then 

basing the MACT floor on the top 12 

percent of the total number of sources 

is appropriate. 

b. Equivalent Limits 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

in addition to the lb/ton MACT floors 

for emissions of Hg and PM (as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals), the 

EPA developed two ‘‘equivalent limits.’’ 

The EPA used its ranking of the sources 

based on their ‘‘average’’ lb/ton 

emissions to identify the best 

performing source or sources for the 

floor pool. To develop the PM and Hg 

‘‘equivalent’’ limits, the EPA took the 

best performing source or sources the 

EPA had selected and retrieved data on 

those sources’ emission performance as 

measured by gr/dscf at 7-percent O2 for 

PM and Hg and lb/hr for Hg. For nonHg HAP metals, the EPA proposed to set 

an additional standard that would limit 

the pounds of non-Hg HAP metals 

emitted per hour. For this additional 

limit, the EPA again used the ranking of 

the sources based on their ‘‘average’’ lb/ 

ton emissions and also (without any 

explanation) no longer used PM as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals, but 

instead set the limit in terms of total 

non-Hg HAP metals. The commenter 

stated that the EPA acknowledged that 

the available data on non-Hg HAP 

metals is incomplete, so to develop this 

proposed limit, the EPA simply took the 

final pounds of PM per ton of fired 

product floor limit that it had derived 

and applied a set of ‘‘conversion 

factors’’ it invented to put that standard 

in terms of pounds of non-Hg HAP 

metal emissions per hour. The 

commenter stated the EPA used 

completely different ‘‘conversion’’ 

methodologies for the new and existing 

standards because the EPA lacks even 

the limited data it used for the existing 

source methodology on new sources. 

The commenter stated the 

‘‘equivalent’’ limits the EPA proposed 

are not ‘‘equivalent’’ and Congress did 

not give the EPA the authority to set 

multiple limits and allow sources to 

comply with whichever limit they 

choose. The commenter stated the EPA’s 

use of different measures of 

performance to identify the top sources 

on the one hand and to evaluate their 

performance on the other is 

inconsistent, irrational, and 

unexplained; the same metric should 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65507 

104There are three distinct sectors within the clay 

ceramics manufacturing industry: ceramic floor tile 

manufacturing, ceramic wall tile manufacturing, 

and sanitaryware manufacturing. These comments 

Continued 

apply for purposes of identifying the 

best performers and identifying those 

sources’ actual performance. The 

commenter also stated the EPA did not 

use the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources ‘‘for which the 

Administrator has emissions 

information’’ for the non-Hg HAP metals 

lb/hr limit. 

Another commenter supported the 

EPA’s inclusion of multiple formats for 

both PM/non-Hg HAP metals and Hg. 

The commenter stated that the inclusion 

of each of these formats, as well as the 

inclusion of small and large kiln 

subcategories, provides needed 

flexibility to numerous BSCP facilities, 

including a large number of small 

businesses, to find that standard that 

best suits their operations while still 

ensuring that the CAA requirements are 

met. The commenter asserted that the 

inclusion of three alternate compliance 

formats is so critical to the development 

of this standard that the EPA must repropose this rule if it maintains numeric 

limits but deletes any of these 

alternative formats for the final rule. 

Response: The EPA appreciates all 

comments regarding the alternative 

limits. The EPA is retaining the 

alternative limits in the final rule but is 

revising the ranking methodology as 

described in section IV.A.2 of this 

preamble. For the final rule, the 

concentration floor is based on the 

ranking of the concentration data, and 

the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking 

of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on 

the best performing units for that unit of 

measurement. 

c. Oxygen Correction 

Comment: One commenter stated, 

regarding the concentration compliance 

limits, that the use of the equation to 

correct measured concentrations to 7- 

percent O2 could be problematic when 

used to correct concentrations measured 

in stacks with high O2 content, which is 

typical of the brick industry. The 

commenter stated because the 

correction term is in the denominator of 

the equation for the correction to 7- 

percent O2, the overall correction factor 

increases exponentially as O2

concentrations approach 20.9 percent. 

As a result, any variances in the O2

measurement are greatly magnified in 

the correction factor for kilns with high 

stack O2 content. The commenter 

suggested that the correction factor 

should be the average O2 content 

represented in the respective floors, 17- 

percent O2 (based on a range of O2 stack 

contents for BSCP kilns from 13 to 20 

percent). The commenter asserted that 

the correction to an average of 17- 

percent will minimize the artificial 

inflation of the results for the industry. 

Response: The EPA evaluated the O2

content of the run-by-run datasets of PM 

and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns as 

described in section IV.A.1 of this 

preamble and agrees that correcting 

concentration data to 17-percent O2

rather than 7-percent, as proposed, 

provides more representative values of 

kilns’ operating conditions and would 

not artificially inflate the values. For the 

final rule, the EPA has taken the O2

percent analysis into consideration and 

revised the equivalent concentration 

based limits to be developed from 17- 

percent O2-corrected concentration data. 

2. Startup and Shutdown 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

supported the use of work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown but asserted that the startup 

and shutdown procedures listed in the 

proposed rule cannot be met by all 

BSCP kilns and must be modified. 

Commenters requested that the final 

language allow a more basic construct 

for the work practice requirements in 

the final rule and require facilities to 

develop site-specific temperatures as 

part of their permitting process. 

Multiple commenters specifically 

stated that the requirement for an 

exhaust temperature of 400 °F at startup 

is not workable because the kiln exhaust 

temperature in some kilns never reaches 

400 °F. Commenters also noted that 

kilns must have product at startup. 

Therefore, commenters requested that 

the startup provisions apply to the 

introduction, or charging, of new brick 

or structural clay product through a kiln 

and not impact the initial staging of kiln 

cars in a kiln before start-up. 

Commenters suggested revisions to the 

proposed language to ‘‘not put any 

bricks into the kiln’’ below specified 

temperatures. 

Multiple commenters agreed with the 

language that requires a kiln to vent to 

an APCD before the exhaust gas reaches 

400 °F, because it can vent at any time 

up to that temperature. Multiple 

commenters stated that for a controlled 

kiln, it is acceptable to require that no 

new product is allowed to be introduced 

to the controlled kiln until the kiln is 

vented to an APCD. One commenter 

stated that a feasible work practice 

standard would be for the exhaust gases 

to be vented through the APCD during 

the startup process, with the reagent 

feed started on an intermittent basis 

during this period and then brought up 

to full feed rate once the exhaust 

temperature has reached the normal 

operating temperature range. 

A few commenters also requested 

specific revisions to the production 

requirements for periods of shutdown. 

One commenter stated that during 

shutdown, a kiln operator would not be 

pushing any cars in the kiln after 

reaching a range of 250 to 300 °F in the 

exhaust stack (depending on the type of 

kiln and its operating parameters). The 

commenter asked that a minimum 

operating range be allowed during a 

shutdown cycle. Another commenter 

noted that a limitation for a kiln to cease 

charging in new product before a kiln 

stops venting to an APCD may be a 

reasonable alternative to temperature 

requirements. 

Response: The EPA evaluated the 

comments and additional information 

received following proposal as 

described in section IV.A.4 of this 

preamble. As a result, the EPA has 

revised the work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown for 

BSCP tunnel kilns to provide 

requirements that are more 

representative of the best performing 

kilns. Specifically, instead of defining 

the minimum inlet APCD temperature 

as 400 °F, the EPA is requiring the 

owner or operator to determine the 

minimum inlet temperature for each 

APCD. If a kiln does not have an APCD, 

the owner or operator is required to 

determine the product-specific kiln 

temperature profile that must be 

achieved before the kiln can reach full 

production. In addition, instead of 

specifying that no product can be 

introduced to the kiln during startup, 

the EPA is requiring the owner or 

operator to determine the production 

rate needed to start up the kiln. The 

final startup standards specify that this 

startup production rate cannot be 

exceeded until the kiln exhaust reaches 

the APCD minimum inlet temperature 

or the product-specific kiln temperature 

profile, whichever is applicable. The 

final shutdown standards specify that 

no additional product can be introduced 

once the kiln exhaust falls below the 

APCD minimum inlet temperature or 

the product-specific kiln temperature 

profile, whichever is applicable. 

C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP 

1. Authority 

Comment: Two commenters argued 

that the EPA has no legal authority to 

finalize major source NESHAP for the 

ceramic tile manufacturing industry 104


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65508 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

address the regulation of HAP emissions from 

ceramic floor tile manufacturing and ceramic wall 

tile manufacturing. 

because there are currently no existing 

major sources in that industry sector 

that will be subject to the standards. 

Specifically, they argued that CAA 

section 112(d)(1) only provides the EPA 

authority to regulate a category or 

subcategory if it has major sources. 

Commenters contended that, here, 

ceramic tile manufacturing facilities that 

emit HAP have all become synthetic 

area sources and so are subject to the 

‘‘area source’’ NESHAP regulation. 

Thus, they argue, the law does not allow 

the EPA to proceed with a major source 

standard for these subcategories. Both 

commenters also stated that the CAA 

does not give the EPA the authority to 

regulate ‘‘just-in-case’’ there is a major 

source in the future, and the EPA may 

only regulate categories and 

subcategories that currently have major 

sources in them. 

One commenter stated that the EPA 

should not devote resources to 

finalizing these regulations when those 

regulations would apply to no one, and, 

thus, will have no environmental 

benefits. The commenter stated that it is 

the EPA’s duty to responsibly steward 

the public resources with which it has 

been entrusted to use in fulfillment of 

its mission, and using these resources to 

issue regulations that will regulate no 

one fails to satisfy that responsibility. 

Issuing such regulations is expensive for 

the regulated community and has the 

real potential to create unintended, 

inaccurate impressions of the industry, 

its emissions and its products. It serves 

no public purpose, and will impose 

short and long term costs on the EPA, 

and long term costs on delegated states 

as an unfunded mandate and on the tile 

manufacturing industry, 79 FR 75671 

(Dec. 18, 2014). 

The commenter argued that, because 

the EPA’s promulgation of standards for 

the ceramic tile industry is not 

authorized by the CAA, finalizing such 

standards would violate Articles I and II 

of the U.S. Constitution because it is an 

attempt by the EPA to rewrite portions 

of the CAA when the power to enact 

laws is reserved to Congress. The 

commenter stated that Congress 

provided clear instructions to the EPA, 

in the unambiguous numerical 

definition of ‘‘major source,’’ as to 

which industry categories or 

subcategories could be regulated by 

major source NESHAP standards. The 

commenter noted that the Supreme 

Court very recently stated: ‘‘An agency 

may not rewrite clear statutory terms to 

suit its own sense of how the statute 

should operate.’’ Util. Air Regulatory 

Grp. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2446 

(2014). Further, the Court stated: ‘‘We 

are not willing to stand on the dock and 

wave goodbye as EPA embarks on a 

multiyear voyage of discovery.’’ 134 

S.Ct. at 2446. The commenter asserted 

that the Supreme Court’s concerns in 

the UARG case are instructive here 

because, as in the UARG case, the 

statute creates unambiguous numeric 

thresholds defining a major source: the 

emission of 10 tpy any one HAP or the 

emission of 25 tpy in the aggregate of all 

HAP, 42 U.S.C. 9612(a)(l). The 

commenter contended that the Supreme 

Court supported the commenter’s 

position when it stated that ‘‘[i]t is hard 

to imagine a statutory term less 

ambiguous than the precise numerical 

thresholds . . .’’ Id. at 2445. 

The commenter argued that the Sierra 

Club consent decree is irrelevant to the 

EPA’s statutory authority and its 

limitations. The consent decree entered 

in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 

F.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012) (hereafter the 

‘‘consent decree’’) is germane to the 

timing of this rulemaking, but it does 

not, and legally could not, expand CAA 

section 112(d) to grant the EPA legal 

authority to regulate on the just-in-case 

basis the EPA has proposed. The 

withdrawal of the proposed NESHAP 

does not preclude the EPA from meeting 

its statutory obligations, fulfilling the 

requirements of the consent decree, and 

continuing its existing precedent. The 

EPA may issue final NESHAP for those 

subcategories within this category in 

which a major source exists. The 

ceramic tile manufacturing industry is 

not among them. 

The commenter argued that the 

proposed NESHAP would, if finalized 

as proposed, be arbitrary and capricious 

because the proposed NESHAP is based 

on hypothetical or imaginary 

manufacturing and air emissions control 

strategies, flawed data from an 

invalidated stack test method, and on 

statistically created emissions data. The 

EPA even proposed in places not to use 

actual emissions data. 

According to the commenter, the 

EPA’s proposal, if finalized, would 

create an economic hurdle so high that 

no one in the industry would expand 

their business to the point of becoming 

a NESHAP major source. Further, a 

substantial number of these entities 

meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business’’ as defined by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA). The 

result of this regulation, if finalized, 

would be to hand non-market-based 

economic advantages to foreign 

producers to grow their presence in the 

U.S. market by importing their 

competing ceramic tile. Financing of 

capital projects will be adversely 

affected by the costs imposed by the 

NESHAP, further raising the economic 

hurdle. Major source domestic 

manufacturing capacity will not be 

built, and the jobs and tax base that go 

along with that capacity will not be 

created. 

Response: Under CAA section 

112(c)(1), the EPA first lists all 

categories and subcategories of major 

sources. It is at this first step that the 

EPA determines that a given category or 

subcategory contains major sources of 

HAP. Then, the EPA sets standards for 

those listed categories and source 

categories. Both CAA section 112(c)(2) 

and CAA section 112(d)(1) make clear 

that the EPA is to regulate all listed 

categories and subcategories. As CAA 

section 112(c)(2) states: ‘‘For the 

categories and subcategories the 

Administrator lists, the Administrator 

shall establish standards . . .’’ As CAA 

section 112(d)(1) states: ‘‘The 

Administrator shall promulgate 

regulations establishing emissions 

standards for each category and 

subcategory of major sources and area 

sources of hazardous air pollutants 

listed for regulation pursuant to 

subsection (c) of this section . . .’’ In 

short, once a category or subcategory of 

major sources is listed under CAA 

section 112(c), it must be regulated. If 

commenters believe that the major 

source ceramic tile subcategories should 

not be regulated, they may seek to delete 

these subcategories from the list, which 

is a process that Congress established in 

CAA section 112(c)(9) and which the DC 

Circuit has held is the EPA’s sole 

authority for removing a listed category 

or subcategory from the list. New Jersey 

v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 581–583 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

In interpreting the relevant provisions 

here, the EPA is mindful of the recent 

and longstanding instructions from the 

Supreme Court that statutory provisions 

must be read to further rather than 

undermine Congress’s statutory intent. 

King v. Burwell, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4248, 

*29 (2015)(‘‘We cannot interpret federal 

statutes to negate their own stated 

purposes.’’)(citing and quoting New 

York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. 

Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419–420, 93 S. 

Ct. 2507, 37 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1973)); E.I. 

Du Pont De Nemours v. Train, 430 U.S. 

112, 132 (1977)(‘‘We cannot, in these 

circumstances, conclude that Congress 

has given authority inadequate to 

achieve with reasonable effectiveness 

the purposes for which it has 

acted.’’)(quoting Permian Basin Area 

Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 777 (1968)). In 

this context, it is unreasonable to read 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65509 

CAA section 112(d)(1) as limiting the 

EPA’s authority to set standards that 

will be applicable to the highest 

emitting sources in a category or 

subcategory and creating a loophole by 

which major sources can evade 

regulation. Without suggesting that the 

following is the commenters’ intent, the 

effect of the commenters’ interpretation 

of CAA section 112 would be that major 

sources would be able to evade 

regulation by, first, becoming synthetic 

area sources during the rulemaking 

process (which, under the commenters’ 

view, would preclude the EPA from 

finalizing standards for major sources) 

and then, after the EPA withdraws the 

proposed standards, reconverting to be 

major sources and thus not subject to 

any standard. Consideration of this 

scenario is particularly appropriate in 

the circumstances here, because there 

are standards in place for area sources 

in the ceramic tile subcategories. It is 

not reasonable to interpret CAA section 

112 to create a structure where an area 

source (whether a natural area source or 

a synthetic area source) has an incentive 

to increase emissions to become a major 

source, and by doing so is no longer 

subject to emissions limitations. 

Further, the issue of whether there are 

major sources in the ceramic tile 

subcategories is not as clear as the 

commenters presume. Even if, as the 

commenters contend, all of the existing 

major sources in these subcategories 

have successfully completed the process 

of becoming synthetic area sources, then 

these sources are not subject to the 

requirements imposed on major sources 

but that does not equate to a conclusion 

that they are no longer major sources in 

any respect. The EPA’s view is that 

synthetic area sources, though subject to 

area source requirements rather than 

major source requirements, are still 

major sources in certain respects. For 

example, synthetic area sources are 

considered to be major sources when 

the EPA identifies the best performing 

major sources as part of a MACT floor 

calculation under CAA section 112(d). 

Further, CAA section 112(a)(1) defines a 

major source as ‘‘any stationary source 

or group of stationary sources located 

within a contiguous area and under 

common control that emits or has the 

potential to emit considering controls, 

in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or 

more of any hazardous air pollutant or 

25 tons per year or more of any 

combination of hazardous air 

pollutants.’’ The reference to a source’s 

‘‘potential to emit considering controls’’ 

in this definition allows the 

interpretation that a source’s potential 

to emit before and after controls is 

relevant, such that synthetic area 

sources may be considered within the 

meaning of this definition. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

argument that CAA section 112 does not 

authorize ‘‘just in case’’ regulation, that 

is both not correct and off point. First, 

CAA section 112 clearly provides that 

the EPA will set standards for new 

sources in the listed categories and 

subcategories notwithstanding that the 

EPA can never know whether there will 

actually be any new sources. As 

required under CAA section 112, the 

EPA establishes new source standards 

‘‘just in case’’ (to use commenter’s 

phrasing) new sources come into 

existence. Second, as discussed above, it 

is reasonable for the EPA to promulgate 

major source standards where, as here, 

there are synthetic area sources that 

could revert to major sources just in 

case that happens. 

With respect to the commenters’ 

argument that it is a poor use of agency 

resources for the EPA to finalize 

standards for the ceramic tile 

subcategories, the EPA has considered 

whether it is better to complete the 

current rulemaking with respect to the 

ceramic tile subcategories (and have 

them in place in the event that there are 

new major sources or a synthetic area 

source reverts to major source status) or 

to take no action now and re-do this 

rulemaking with respect to these 

subcategories in the event that there are 

major sources in the future. The EPA’s 

conclusion is that, having gotten this far 

along in the rulemaking process, it is a 

better use of agency resources to finalize 

requirements for the ceramic tile 

subcategories now. Given the options, 

finalizing these requirements in this 

rulemaking requires only a modest 

amount of additional resources, and is 

a much more efficient use of agency 

resources than restarting and repeating 

the rulemaking process at some point in 

the future. Even if one considers that 

there may not be any major sources that 

become subject to these requirements 

and that such a rulemaking might not 

ever be done, the EPA’s judgment is still 

that it is more efficient and a more costeffective use of agency resources to 

finalize these requirements now. 

Finally, on the issue of how likely it is 

that major sources will be built in the 

future, the EPA notes that the 

commenters’ own arguments suggest 

they will be. Specifically, the 

commenters stated that having a major 

source standard in place will dissuade 

companies from expanding small 

facilities into major sources and will 

impede financing for new major 

sources. The premise of such a comment 

is that, in the absence of a standard, 

there will be such expansions and new 

major sources. 

The document ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: 

Background Information for Final 

Rule—Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0290 addresses 

additional comments on this topic. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, the EPA failed to 

demonstrate that the benefits of this 

proposed arbitrary and capricious 

NESHAP justify the costs. As stated in 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

issued by President Obama on January 

18, 2011 to reaffirm Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘[e]ach agency must . . . 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs.’’ The preamble 

to the proposed NESHAP provides cost 

information (which the commenter 

noted elsewhere is erroneous) but did 

not discuss the benefits. The EPA only 

articulated the benefits of the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP. With respect 

to costs, the EPA’s cost analysis failed 

to account for costs to the agency and 

delegated states to promulgate and 

implement the regulations. There are no 

benefits to justify any of these costs. 

Further, ‘‘[i]n deciding whether and 

how to regulate, agencies should assess 

all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives, including the 

alternative of not regulating.’’ The EPA 

did not assess the alternative of not 

regulating—a path that would have 

exactly the same result, as there are no 

major sources to be regulated or not 

regulated. Therefore, the commenter 

stated that the EPA failed to meet its 

burden; the proposed NESHAP does not 

have benefits justifying its costs, and 

therefore such a regulation cannot be 

adopted. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter. First, CAA section 112 

clearly states that the EPA is obligated 

to regulate emissions of HAP from listed 

source categories. There is no benefits 

test in the statutory requirement. The 

language in Executive Order 12866 does 

not supersede a clear legal requirement 

in the CAA. Second, because there are 

no major sources that will be regulated 

by this rule at the present time, there 

will be no implementation costs for the 

rule. If at a later date a major source is 

constructed, or a non-major source 

becomes major, then there will be 

implementation costs, but this rule will 

result in emission reduction 

requirements compared to the emissions 

that would be expected to occur in the 

absence of a rule. Therefore, at the point 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65510 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

where this rule actually results in costs, 

it will also have corresponding benefits. 

In the absence of any current major 

sources that will be covered by this rule, 

we simply cannot calculate the benefits. 

2. MACT Floors 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the inclusion of emissions data 

from Kohler’s South Carolina facility 

tunnel kiln with the wet scrubber in the 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln existing source 

data pool for MACT floor determination. 

The commenter stated that Kohler 

installed a new tunnel kiln at the South 

Carolina facility in 2005 under the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 

promulgated in 2003, which, according 

to the commenter, required the 

installation of APCD on any new firstfire tunnel kilns to meet the HF and HCl 

emission limitations. The APCD that 

Kohler installed, a wet scrubber, was 

written into the facility’s air permit at 

the time, and so its use at that time was 

federally enforceable. The court vacated 

the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP in 2007, and the South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control revised the 

facility’s air permit in March 2009, 

removing any reference to the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and 

any requirement to operate the scrubber. 

Kohler then permanently shut down the 

scrubber in March 2009, though they 

continued to operate the tunnel kiln per 

permit requirements. Due to cost 

considerations, the scrubber was 

abandoned in place and not 

demolished/removed. 

The commenter noted that, when the 

EPA issued the information collection 

request (ICR) for clay ceramics 

emissions test data in 2010, the EPA 

required that Kohler make operational 

that wet scrubber for emissions testing 

of that tunnel kiln, even though the 

APCD was not listed in any permit nor 

required under any rule and had not 

been operated in 17 months. Initially, 

Kohler agreed to test the kiln as an 

existing source per operational 

requirements in the facility’s air permit 

(i.e., without the wet scrubber). 

However, the EPA demanded that 

Kohler restart and operate the 

abandoned scrubber during the kiln’s 

emissions testing. The commenter noted 

that Kohler cooperated with the EPA 

and tested emissions with the scrubber 

operating, but the scrubber was 

immediately shut down after testing. 

This scrubber has operated for a total of 

1 week in the past 6 years, and that 

short period of operation was only to 

comply with the EPA’s ICR testing 

demand. 

The commenter acknowledged that 

the EPA has the authority require 

operation of any permitted source for 

emissions testing under rulemaking and 

ICR protocol. The commenter agreed 

with the EPA that the ‘‘kiln’’ in question 

is an existing source but disagreed that 

the non-operating wet scrubber qualifies 

as part of an existing source. The 

commenter contended that the EPA is 

arbitrarily penalizing Kohler for not 

spending the money to demolish and 

remove the wet scrubber back in 2009 

when it was removed from the facility’s 

air permit. The commenter asserted that 

the test data from the wet scrubber are 

not representative of any existing source 

and were not actually achieved in 

practice over time. Therefore, using the 

test data in the MACT floor analysis is 

inconsistent with the EPA’s expressed 

intent to determine MACT floors for 

existing sources based on the average 

emissions actually achieved in practice 

by the best performing sources with 

consideration for variability in 

emissions over time. The commenter 

asserted that all emissions data from the 

wet scrubber should be excluded from 

the existing source data pool for MACT 

floor analysis, and the existing source 

floors should be recalculated for the 

remaining existing sources. 

Response: Data from the APCD the 

commenter refers to was considered in 

developing both the new and existing 

MACT floors for sanitaryware kilns. As 

stated by the commenter, the APCD was 

installed to comply with the previously 

promulgated Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP and thus was 

an available data point for collection 

through the CAA section 114 data 

collection process for this rulemaking. 

Because this source had an operational 

APCD (even though it was not being 

operated), we believe that testing with 

the APCD operating would be most 

representative of the source’s best 

performance as defined in the CAA. 

Having collected the emissions data for 

the source with the APCD operating, the 

EPA considered the data consistent with 

section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, under 

which the Administrator is required to 

calculate ‘‘the average emission 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 5 sources (for which the 

Administrator has or could reasonably 

obtain emissions information) in the 

category or subcategory for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources.’’ Since it is appropriate to 

include the data in the database 

available to determine MACT floors, it 

is appropriate to use these data in floor 

calculations, if it is actually part of the 

best performing facilities. We note, 

however, that the data from this device 

was only significant for the existing 

source dioxin/furan MACT floor, for 

reasons that are dependent on each 

regulated pollutant and discussed as 

follows. 

For both new and existing PM MACT 

floors, the final limit was unaffected by 

use of these data, since the data from the 

APCD was not ranked in the top five 

sources with data. 

For both new and existing Hg MACT 

floors, the data from the APCD were not 

ranked because the data were 

invalidated. The data were removed 

from the dataset because of errors in the 

analytical procedures surrounding the 

digestion process as dictated by Method 

29. See Section 4.1: Analytical 

discrepancy of the Test Report ‘‘Kohler 

Co., Spartanburg, SC: Tunnel Kilns and 

Glaze Spray Booths 08/11–17/2010 

Stack Test,’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290–0069. 

For dioxin/furan, the data from the 

APCD are in the top five but is not the 

best performing unit based on the 

dioxin/furan ng/kg ranking. (Note the 

units of measure for dioxin/furan 

ranking have changed from the 

proposed ng/dscm at 7-percent O2 to ng/ 

kg.) For the existing source floor, the 

result of the calculation of the best 

performing five sources is 3.3 ng/kg 

with the data point, and would have 

been 4.0 ng/kg without the data point, 

which we consider a nominal 

difference. The difference does not 

result in any source having to add 

controls. The calculation of the new 

source floor was not affected by the data 

from the APCD because, as stated above, 

the source was not the best performing 

unit, and the new source floor is based 

on the best performing unit. 

Comment: Three commenters 

questioned EPA’s decision to propose 

the dioxin/furan emission limits for 

ceramic tile manufacturing and 

sanitaryware manufacturing in 

concentration format only. Two 

commenters stated that the final dioxin/ 

furan standards should provide the 

option to comply with a limitation 

expressed in units of nanograms per 

milligram of tile produced, in addition 

to or in lieu of the proposed standard 

stated in ng/dscm. A mass-based 

production-related standard effectively 

removed the issues around O2

correction created by use of a standard 

based only on concentration. Further, 

the commenters asserted that it is a 

more universally appropriate 

adjustment for comparison of emissions 

from large kilns having high air flow 

rates to emissions from small kilns with 

low air volumes. The third commenter 

agreed and noted that the proposed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65511 

limits for PM and Hg are expressed as 

lb/ton fired product. The commenter 

asked EPA to explain how the 

concentration format for the emission 

limit is more appropriate for dioxins/

furans than a mass throughput limit. If 

it is not, the commenter suggested using 

a mass throughput format for the 

dioxin/furan emission limit. 

Response: The dioxin/furan limits 

provided in the final rule for clay 

ceramics are in units of ng TEQ/kg of 

throughput fired or processed. The EPA 

agrees that this change in format 

eliminates the questions surrounding 

the O2 correction for concentration 

values and is more consistent with the 

other units of measure provided in the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

limits, the owner or operator will 

determine the mass TEQ for each test 

run (using the toxic equivalency factors 

in Table 5 to subpart KKKKK), divide 

the mass TEQ by the production rate 

during the test run, and average the test 

runs. 

The production-based dioxin/furan 

limits are provided in lieu of the 

proposed concentration limits. The 

compliance flexibility provided to the 

BSCP Manufacturing source category 

(including alternative compliance 

options for PM and Hg) was solely 

related to concerns under the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), specifically 

reducing the regulatory burden of the 

numerous small entities in the BSCP 

category. There are no small businesses 

expected to be subject to the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, so 

the EPA determined that no additional 

compliance flexibility was necessary or 

warranted for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source category. 

3. Startup and Shutdown 

Comment: One commenter challenged 

the proposed startup and shutdown 

regulations for ceramic tile 

manufacturing. The commenter asserted 

that these standards are based 

conceptually on the desire to minimize 

the time during which ceramic tile 

manufacturing process units operate in 

a temperature range that is ‘‘conducive’’ 

to the formation of new dioxins/furans 

(i.e., 200–450 degrees Celsius). The 

commenter stated that this concern is 

moot because there are no new dioxins/ 

furans formed in the ceramic tile 

industry sector, based on the emissions 

data the EPA proposed to use to set 

MACT floors for ceramic tile sources 

and on the fact that ceramic tile dioxin/ 

furan congener profiles are different 

from the profile of the dioxins/furans 

created as a product of combustion. 

The commenter also challenged the 

EPA’s startup and shutdown proposal 

for spray dryers relative to dioxins/

furans. The input to the spray dryer 

experiences no more than 212 °F 

because the operational purpose of the 

spray dryer is to cause the excess 

moisture suspended or attached to the 

ball clay matrix to evaporate. If any 

spray dryer operating temperature is 

relevant to the EPA’s concern about 

temperatures in a spray dryer conducive 

to dioxin/furan formation, this is the 

correct focus. 

For ceramic tile floor tile and wall tile 

roller kilns, the commenter stated that 

the proposed temperature requirements 

for startup and shutdown reflect good 

kiln production practices; therefore, the 

proposed startup and shutdown 

standards are unnecessary. 

The commenter noted that the 

standards are based only on data from 

the BSCP subcategory, and the proposed 

temperatures are not appropriate for all 

sources. For example, ceramic tile 

dryers uniformly operate below 400 °F, 

so product could never be introduced to 

a tile dryer. The commenter also noted 

that the startup provisions require 

startup of APCD at 400 °F. However, 

ceramic tile dryers do not have APCD 

because they burn only natural gas, their 

normal operating temperature is less 

than 400 °F, and their resulting 

emissions are minimal. For these 

reasons, the proposal effectively 

constitutes a ban on the operation of tile 

dryers. If tile dryers are not an available 

manufacturing process, ceramic tile 

manufacturing as it is currently 

conducted in the United States would 

effectively cease at major sources. The 

commenter stated that the EPA lacks the 

legal authority to implement a de facto 

shut down of major sources, or to bar 

the possibility of the proposal of a major 

source, in this industry. 

For all the above reasons, the 

commenter asserted that the EPA must 

withdraw the startup and shutdown 

proposal from any final NESHAP for 

this subcategory. The commenter 

contended that, as proposed, these 

standards are arbitrary and capricious. 

Response: The CAA requires that 

NESHAP emissions limitations under 

section 112 must apply continuously, 

including during periods of startup and 

shutdown. As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, we recognize that it 

is not feasible to conduct emission 

testing during periods of startup and 

shutdown; therefore, owners and 

operators would be unable to 

demonstrate compliance with the final 

numeric MACT standards during those 

periods. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing 

work practice standards for periods of 

startup or shutdown to ensure that the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 

includes continuous CAA section 112- 

compliant standards. 

The commenter is correct that the 

specific startup and shutdown work 

practice standards proposed were based 

on information from the BSCP industry. 

In absence of any data on specific 

startup and shutdown procedures from 

the clay ceramics CAA section 114 

survey, the EPA used the only data 

available for a similar industry. The 

EPA has not received any additional 

information from clay ceramics 

manufacturers on specific procedures, 

and in light of that lack of data, the EPA 

maintains that the less prescriptive 

startup and shutdown work practices 

being finalized for the BSCP industry 

are appropriate for the clay ceramics 

industry. First, one of the commenter’s 

main points is that the specific 

temperatures that were proposed are not 

appropriate for all the types of units to 

which the standards were proposed to 

apply, which is consistent with 

comments received on the BSCP 

proposal. Second, the commenter did 

note that the proposed standards reflect 

good kiln production practices for one 

type of process unit for which the 

specific temperature was appropriate. 

Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work 

practice standards that are based on best 

practices but are less prescriptive than 

the proposed standards. 

As a final note, the EPA is clarifying 

in this response that the startup and 

shutdown standards are not intended to 

minimize only emissions of dioxins/

furans. Instead, the standards are 

intended to minimize emissions of all 

pollutants by limiting the amount of 

throughput being processed before the 

unit reaches full production and 

limiting the amount of time the exhaust 

is not being routed to the APCD, if 

applicable. In addition, the proposed 

startup and shutdown work practice 

requirements did not require the use of 

an APCD, nor do the final standards. 

The standards only specify the 

requirements for routing exhaust to an 

APCD if one is present. The EPA has 

reviewed the language in the final rule 

to ensure the standards are clear. 

VI. Summary of the Cost, 

Environmental, Energy and Economic 

Impacts 

A. What are the cost and emissions 

reduction impacts? 

Table 8 of this preamble illustrates the 

costs and emissions reductions for 

existing sources under the final BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP and final Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65512 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

costs include the costs of installing 

APCD as well as the costs for the testing 

and monitoring needed to demonstrate 

compliance. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a

[2011 dollars] 

Industry 

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy) 

Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP 

metals b

Hg PM PM2.5 c SO2

BSCP ......................................................... $64.6 $24.6 344 22.1 2.04 7.08 0.0733 643 309 205 

Clay Ceramics ........................................... 0.267 0.0924 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

a Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring. 

b Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium. 

cPM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. 

The nationwide capital and annual 

costs of the APCD, testing, and 

monitoring needed to comply with the 

final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are 

expected to total $64.6 million and 

$24.6 million, respectively (2011 

dollars). The nationwide HAP emissions 

reductions achieved under the final 

BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are 

expected to total 375 tpy. The 

methodology used to estimate the 

nationwide costs and emissions 

reductions of the final BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in 

the technical memoranda titled 

‘‘Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP’’ and 

‘‘Monitoring and Testing Requirements 

and Costs for the Final BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP’’ in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

It is anticipated that all sanitaryware 

emission points will meet the MACT 

floor emission limits in the final Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, so 

no emission control costs or emissions 

reductions are expected for these 

sources. However, these facilities are 

expected to incur $92,400 annually in 

monitoring and testing costs to 

demonstrate compliance with the final 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 

These costs are documented in the 

technical memorandum titled, 

‘‘Monitoring and Testing Requirements 

and Costs for the Final Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP’’ in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0290. 

There are no major sources producing 

ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. 

The five facilities that were major 

sources at the time of the 2008 and 2010 

EPA surveys have already taken the 

necessary steps to become synthetic area 

sources. Consequently, none of the 

known tile facilities will be subject to 

the provisions of the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP, which means 

that no costs or emissions reductions are 

expected for tile affected sources under 

the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP. 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

Table 9 of this preamble illustrates the 

secondary impacts for existing sources 

under the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF SECONDARY IMPACTS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING SOURCES a

Industry 

Secondary air emissions (tpy) Energy 

impacts 

(MMBtu/yr) 

Solid waste 

impacts 

PM PM2.5 CO NOX SO2 CO2 (tpy) 

BSCP ................................. 3.40 1.14 5.74 45.6 133 27,900 461,000 5,210 

Clay Ceramics ................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

a CO = carbon monoxide; CO2 = carbon dioxide; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year. 

The relevant secondary impacts that 

were evaluated for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 

include secondary air emissions, energy 

impacts and solid waste impacts. 

Indirect or secondary air emissions are 

impacts that result from the increased 

electricity usage associated with the 

operation of APCD to meet the 

promulgated limits (i.e., increased 

secondary emissions of criteria 

pollutants from power plants). Energy 

impacts consist of the electricity needed 

to operate the APCD, and solid waste 

impacts consist of the particulate 

captured by the APCD that is disposed 

of as waste (not reused or recycled). 

Under the final BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP, the nationwide secondary 

emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, 

CO, NOX and SO2 are expected to total 

188 tpy, and secondary emissions of the 

greenhouse gas pollutant CO2 are 

expected to total 27,900 tpy, with 

energy impacts of 461,000 MMBtu/yr 

and solid waste impacts of 5,210 tpy. 

The methodology used to estimate the 

nationwide secondary impacts of the 

final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is 

presented in the technical 

memorandum, ‘‘Development of Cost 

and Emission Reduction Impacts for the 

Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291. 

As noted in the previous section, it is 

anticipated that all sanitaryware 

emission points will meet the MACT 

floor emission limits in the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing final rule, so 

there are no secondary impacts expected 

for these sources. There are no major 

sources producing ceramic floor tile or 

ceramic wall tile. The five facilities that 

were major sources at the time of the 

2008 and 2010 EPA surveys have 

already taken the necessary steps to 

become synthetic area sources. 

Consequently, none of the known 

ceramic tile facilities are expected to be 

subject to the provisions of the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, 

which means that no secondary impacts 

are expected for ceramic tile affected 

sources under the final Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP. 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

For the BSCP Manufacturing source 

category, the average national brick 

price under the promulgated standards 

increases by 1.8 percent or $4.37 per 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65513 

105Roman, et al., 2008. ‘‘Expert Judgment 

Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in 

Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.,’’ 

Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274. 

106Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012. 

‘‘Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of 

emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and 

mobile emission sectors across the U.S.’’ 

Environment International 49 41–151. 

107U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA–452/R–12– 

003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Health and Environmental Impacts Division. 

December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/

2012/finalria.pdf. 

108U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. 

Technical support document: Estimating the benefit 

per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from 17 

sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January. 

1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE) 

(2011 dollars), while overall domestic 

production falls by 1.5 percent or 52 

million bricks per year. Under the 

promulgated standards, the EPA 

estimated that two to four BSCP 

manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure. 

Based on the results of the small 

entity screening analysis for BSCP 

Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that 

it is not able to certify that the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As a result, the 

EPA initiated a Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel and 

undertook an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). 

For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, one 

sanitaryware company owns major 

sources and will incur costs (for testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting). That affected company is not 

a small business. The compliance costs 

are less than 0.002 percent of sales for 

the affected company. Hence, the 

economic impact for compliance is 

minimal. As noted above, there are no 

major sources producing ceramic floor 

tile or ceramic wall tile. Because no 

small firms face significant control 

costs, there is no significant impact on 

small entities. Thus, the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing regulation is not 

expected to have significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis and market analyses, please 

refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Final Brick and Structural Clay Products 

NESHAP,’’ which is available in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 

D. What are the benefits? 

Emission controls installed to meet 

the requirements of this rule will 

generate benefits by reducing emissions 

of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and 

their precursors, NOX and SO2. Sulfur 

dioxide and NOX are precursors to 

PM2.5, and NOX is a precursor to ozone. 

The criteria pollutant benefits are 

considered co-benefits for this rule. For 

this rule, we were only able to quantify 

the health co-benefits associated with 

reduced exposure to PM2.5 from changes 

in emissions directly emitted PM2.5, 

SO2, and NOX. We estimate the 

monetized co-benefits of the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP in 2018 to be 

$83 million to $190 million (2011 

dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 

$75 million to $170 million (2011 

dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate, not 

including consideration of energy 

disbenefits. Using alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality supplied by 

experts, higher and lower co-benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between 

these two estimates.105 A summary of 

the emission reduction and monetized 

co-benefits estimates for this BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP at discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is 

illustrated in Table 10 of this preamble. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED PM2.5 CO-BENEFITS FOR THE BSCP MANUFACTURING NESHAP IN 2018 

[Millions of 2011 dollars] a b

Pollutant 

Emission 

reductions 

(tpy) 

Total monetized co-benefits 

(3 percent discount) 

Total monetized co-benefits 

(7 percent discount) 

Directly emitted PM2.5 .............................. 308 $83 to $190 ............................................. $75 to $170. 

PM2.5 precursors 

SO2 ................................................... 72 $2.9 to $6.6 ............................................. $2.6 to $6.0. 

NOX c ................................................ ¥46 ¥$0.29 to ¥$0.66 .................................. ¥$0.26 to ¥$0.59. 

Total monetized benefits ........... ........................ $84 to $190 ............................................. $76 to $170.

aAll estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized 

co-benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2

and directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized co-benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment. bPM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to 

allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. cThese emission reductions are the net emission reductions from the rule after subtracting out secondary emission increases due to additional 

energy requirements to run the control equipment. These estimates do not include monetized CO2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $3 million depending on the discount rate. See the RIA for more information about how the EPA monetized these disbenefits. 

These co-benefits estimates represent 

the total monetized human health 

benefits for populations exposed to less 

PM2.5 from controls installed to reduce 

air pollutants in order to meet this rule. 

Due to analytical limitations, it was not 

possible to conduct air quality modeling 

for this rule. Instead, we used a 

‘‘benefit-per-ton’’ approach to estimate 

the benefits of this rulemaking. To 

create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this 

approach uses a model to convert 

emissions of PM2.5 precursors into 

changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and 

another model to estimate the changes 

in human health associated with that 

change in air quality, which are then 

divided by the emissions in specific 

sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates 

were derived using the approach 

published in Fann, et al. (2012),106 but 

they have since been updated to reflect 

the studies and population data in the 

2012 p.m. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) RIA.107

Specifically, we multiplied the benefitper-ton estimates from the ‘‘Non-EGU 

Point other’’ category by the 

corresponding emission reductions.108

All national-average benefit-per-ton 

estimates reflect the geographic 

distribution of the modeled emissions, 

which may not exactly match the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65514 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

109 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. 

Calle, D. Krewski, K. Itoand G.D. Thurston. 2002. 

‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortalityand 

Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution.’’ Journal of the American Medical 

Association 287:1132–1141. 

110Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. 

2012. ‘‘Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and 

Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard 

Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.’’ Environ 

Health Perspect. July; 120(7):965–70. 

111U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on 

the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

112U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA–452/R–12– 

003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Health and Environmental Impacts Division. 

December. Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291–0087. 

emission reductions in this rulemaking 

and, thus, they may not reflect the local 

variability in population density, 

meteorology, exposure, baseline health 

incidence rates or other local factors for 

any specific location. More information 

regarding the derivation of the benefitper-ton estimates for this category is 

available in the technical support 

document, which is available as Docket 

Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291– 

0089. 

These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical 

composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because the 

scientific evidence is not yet sufficient 

to allow differentiation of effects 

estimates by particle type. Even though 

we assume that all fine particles have 

equivalent health effects, the benefitper-ton estimates vary between 

precursors depending on the location 

and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5

levels, which drive population 

exposure. 

It is important to note that the 

magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is 

largely driven by the concentration 

response function for premature 

mortality. We cite two key empirical 

studies, one based on the American 

Cancer Society cohort study 109 and the 

extended Six Cities cohort study.110 In 

the RIA for the final rule, which is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291, we also include 

benefits estimates derived from expert 

judgments (Roman, et al., 2008) as a 

characterization of uncertainty 

regarding the PM2.5-mortality 

relationship. 

Considering a substantial body of 

published scientific literature, reflecting 

thousands of epidemiology, toxicology 

and clinical studies, the EPA’s 

Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter 111 documents the 

association between elevated PM2.5

concentrations and adverse health 

effects, including increased premature 

mortality. This assessment, which was 

twice reviewed by the EPA’s 

independent SAB, concluded that the 

scientific literature consistently finds 

that a no-threshold model most 

adequately portrays the PM-mortality 

concentration-response relationship. 

Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA 

assumes that the health impact function 

for fine particles is without a threshold. 

In general, we are more confident in 

the magnitude of the risks we estimate 

from simulated PM2.5 concentrations 

that coincide with the bulk of the 

observed PM concentrations in the 

epidemiological studies that are used to 

estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are 

less confident in the risk we estimate 

from simulated PM2.5 concentrations 

that fall below the bulk of the observed 

data in these studies. Concentration 

benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest 

measured level (LML) or one standard 

deviation below the mean of the air 

quality data in the study) allow readers 

to determine the portion of population 

exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at 

or above different concentrations, which 

provides some insight into the level of 

uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5

mortality benefits. There are 

uncertainties inherent in identifying any 

particular point at which our confidence 

in reported associations becomes 

appreciably less and the scientific 

evidence provides no clear dividing 

line. However, the EPA does not view 

these concentration benchmarks as a 

concentration threshold below which 

we would not quantify health benefits of 

air quality improvements. 

For this analysis, policy-specific air 

quality data are not available due to 

time and resource limitations and, thus, 

we are unable to estimate the percentage 

of premature mortality associated with 

this specific rule’s emission reductions 

at each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate 

measure of mortality impacts, we 

provide the percentage of the 

population exposed at each PM2.5 level 

using the source apportionment 

modeling used to calculate the benefitper-ton estimates for this sector. Using 

the Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 

percent of the population is exposed to 

annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the 

LML of 5.8 mg/m 3. Using the Lepeule, 

et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 

8 mg/m3. It is important to note that 

baseline exposure is only one parameter 

in the health impact function, along 

with baseline incidence rates, 

population and change in air quality. 

Therefore, caution is warranted when 

interpreting the LML assessment for this 

rule because these results are not 

consistent with results from rules that 

model changes in air quality. 

Every benefit analysis examining the 

potential effects of a change in 

environmental protection requirements 

is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, 

model capabilities (such as geographic 

coverage) and uncertainties in the 

underlying scientific and economic 

studies used to configure the benefit and 

cost models. Despite these uncertainties, 

we believe the benefit analysis for this 

rule provides a reasonable indication of 

the expected health benefits of the 

rulemaking under a set of reasonable 

assumptions. This analysis does not 

include the type of detailed uncertainty 

assessment found in the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS RIA 112 because we lack the 

necessary air quality input and 

monitoring data to run the benefits 

model. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for this 

rule, and using a benefit-per-ton 

approach adds another important source 

of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. 

The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits 

analysis provides an indication of the 

sensitivity of our results to various 

assumptions. 

It should be noted that the monetized 

co-benefits estimates provided above do 

not include benefits from several 

important benefit categories, including 

exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects 

and visibility impairment. Although we 

do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide 

monetized estimates for this rule, we 

include a qualitative assessment of these 

unquantified benefits in the RIA for 

these promulgated standards. 

The specific control technologies for 

this rule are anticipated to have minor 

secondary disbenefits, including an 

increase of 41 tons of NOX, about 3 tons 

of PM, less than 6 tons of CO and 121 

tons of SO2 each year. Because we do 

not currently have methods to monetize 

emission changes of CO, only secondary 

effects of PM, SO2, and NOX were 

included in the monetary evaluation of 

the actual benefits. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for this 

rule, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

NESHAP,’’ which is available in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65515 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is an economically 

significant regulatory action that was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the dockets for this 

action. The EPA prepared an analysis of 

the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This 

analysis is contained in ‘‘Regulatory 

Impact Analysis: Final Brick and 

Structural Clay Products NESHAP.’’ A 

copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket for the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291) and the analysis is 

briefly summarized here. 

The EPA’s study estimates that 

affected BSCP facilities will incur total 

annualized costs of $24.6 million (2011 

dollars) under the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP, including costs of emission 

controls, testing and monitoring, along 

with recordkeeping and reporting costs 

for facilities that have testing and 

monitoring. The EPA gathered 

information on firm sales and overall 

industry profitability for firms owning 

affected BSCP facilities. The EPA 

estimated that two to four BSCP 

manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure under the 

final standards. 

The EPA also conducted an 

assessment of the benefits of the final 

rule, as described in section VI of this 

preamble. These estimates reflect the 

monetized human health benefits of 

reducing cases of morbidity and 

premature mortality among populations 

exposed to PM2.5 reduced by this rule. 

Data, resource and methodological 

limitations prevented the EPA from 

monetizing the benefits from several 

important benefit categories, including 

benefits from reducing exposure to 375 

tons of HAP each year for the 

promulgated standards, as well as 

ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. In addition to reducing 

emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, 

this rule will reduce several non-Hg 

HAP metals emissions (i.e., arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, 

nickel, and selenium) each year. The 

EPA estimates the total monetized cobenefits to be $83 million to $190 

million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent 

discount rate and $75 million to $170 

million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent 

discount rate on a yearly average in 

2018 for the promulgated standards. 

Based on the EPA’s examination of 

costs and benefits of the final BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP, the EPA 

believes that the benefits of the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP will exceed the 

costs. 

The EPA also examined the costs and 

economic impacts associated with the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 

The remaining firm with major sources 

is estimated to incur costs as a result of 

the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final 

rule and the firm only incurs costs 

associated with testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting. Total 

annualized costs are only $92,400 (2011 

dollars) and the firm’s estimated costs of 

complying with the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP are less than 

0.002 percent of sales. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA. The 

ICR document that the EPA prepared for 

the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 2509.01. 

The ICR document that the EPA 

prepared for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2510.01. You 

can find copies of the ICRs in the 

dockets for the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing NESHAP, and they are 

briefly summarized here. The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

The information collected from 

respondents will be used by EPA 

enforcement personnel to: (1) identify 

new, modified, reconstructed and 

existing sources subject to the 

standards; (2) ensure that MACT is 

being properly applied; and (3) ensure 

that the APCD are being properly 

operated and maintained on a 

continuous basis. In addition, records 

and reports are necessary to enable the 

EPA to identify facilities that may not be 

in compliance with the standards. Based 

on the reported information, the EPA 

can decide which facilities should be 

inspected and what records or processes 

should be inspected at these facilities. 

The records that facilities maintain will 

indicate to the EPA whether the owners 

and operators are in compliance with 

the emission limitations (including 

emission limits, operating limits) and 

work practice standards. Much of the 

information the EPA would need to 

determine compliance would be 

recorded and retained onsite at the 

facility. Such information would be 

reviewed by enforcement personnel 

during an inspection and would not 

need to be routinely reported to the 

EPA. 

All information submitted to the EPA 

for which a claim of confidentiality is 

made will be safeguarded according to 

EPA policies set forth in title 40, chapter 

1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of 

Business Information. (See 40 CFR 2; 41 

FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended 

by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 

FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 

FR 17674, March 23, 1979.) 

Potential respondents to the 

information collection requirements in 

the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are 

owners and operators of new and 

existing sources at BSCP manufacturing 

facilities. A BSCP facility manufactures 

brick, including face brick, structural 

brick, brick pavers, or other brick and/ 

or structural clay products including 

clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and 

wall tile; or other extruded, dimensional 

clay products. The BSCP facilities 

typically form, dry and fire bricks and 

shapes that are composed primarily of 

clay and shale. Kilns are used to fire 

BSCP. The rule applies to all new and 

existing tunnel and periodic kilns at 

BSCP facilities. 

Potential respondents to the 

information collection requirements in 

the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP are owners and operators of 

new and existing sources at clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities. A 

clay ceramics facility manufactures 

pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, or 

sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). 

Clay ceramics facilities typically form, 

dry and fire tile or sanitaryware 

products that are composed of clay, 

shale and various additives. Spray 

dryers are used during the forming 

process at tile facilities to process the 

ceramic mix into a powder to allow tile 

pressing. Dryers are used to reduce the 

moisture content of the ceramic 

products prior to firing. Glazes are 

applied to some tile and sanitaryware 

products, with glaze spraying 

accounting for all glazing emissions. 

Kilns are used to fire the ceramic 

products and include ceramic tile roller 

kilns and sanitaryware tunnel and 

shuttle kilns. The rule applies to all 

existing, new and reconstructed affected 

sources, which include the kilns, glaze 

spray operations, ceramic tile spray 

dryers and floor tile press dryers. (Wall 

tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65516 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

dryers, with no measurable emissions, 

are not covered.) 

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 emissions 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 the EPA 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

In addition to the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions, the final rule includes 

paperwork requirements associated with 

initial and 5-year repeat testing for 

selected process equipment, electronic 

reporting of performance test results, 

parameter monitoring, preparation of an 

OM&M plan, maintenance and 

inspection of process and control 

equipment, compliance with work 

practice standards and periods of 

malfunction. 

Collection of data will begin after the 

effective date of the final BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The 

compliance date for existing sources is 

3 years after the effective date. The 

compliance date for new or 

reconstructed sources is the effective 

date if the source startup date is before 

the effective date, or upon startup if the 

startup date is on or after the effective 

date. The schedule for notifications and 

reports required by the rule is 

summarized below. 

For BSCP and clay ceramics facilities 

with existing affected sources, the initial 

notification stating that the facility is 

subject to the rule must be submitted no 

later than 120 calendar days after the 

effective date of the rule. Facilities with 

new or reconstructed affected sources 

for which startup occurs on or after the 

effective date must submit the initial 

notification no later than 120 calendar 

days after the source becomes subject to 

the rule (although we are projecting no 

new affected sources in the short term). 

Facilities may choose to submit a 

request to use the routine control device 

maintenance alternative standard no 

later than 120 calendar days prior to the 

compliance date. Facilities required to 

conduct a performance test must submit 

a notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test at least 60 calendar 

days before the performance test is 

scheduled to begin. For each initial 

compliance demonstration that includes 

a performance test, facilities must 

submit an initial notification of 

compliance status no later than 60 

calendar days following the completion 

of the performance test. For each initial 

compliance demonstration that does not 

involve a performance test, facilities 

must submit an initial notification 

within 30 calendar days of completing 

the initial compliance demonstration. 

Records necessary to determine 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards 

must be compiled on a daily basis, and 

compliance reports must be submitted 

to the Administrator on a semiannual 

basis. Repeat performance tests are to be 

conducted every 5 years to ensure 

ongoing compliance. 

There are 90 BSCP facilities that are 

currently major sources of HAP, 84 of 

which have at least one tunnel kiln. An 

estimated 21 of these facilities are 

projected to become synthetic area 

sources by promulgation rather than 

comply with the BSCP standards. The 

remaining 69 facilities (63 of which 

have a tunnel kiln) are expected to be 

subject to the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP. For these 69 facilities, the 

annual recordkeeping and reporting 

burden associated with the BSCP 

standards (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 20,963 

labor hours per year, at a cost of 

$1,113,105 per year (yr). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

No capital costs associated with 

monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or 

reporting are expected to be incurred 

during this period. The annual 

operation and maintenance costs are 

estimated to be $682/yr. 

The total burden for the federal 

government (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 71 labor 

hours per year, at a total labor cost of 

$3,698/yr. (All costs are in 2011 

dollars.) 

There are three clay ceramics facilities 

that are currently major sources of HAP 

and are expected to be subject to the 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. 

For these three facilities, the annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden 

associated with the Clay Ceramics 

standards (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to total 996 labor 

hours per year at a cost of $52,674/yr. 

As with the BSCP standards, no 

capital costs associated with 

monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or 

reporting are expected to be incurred 

during this period. The annual 

operation and maintenance costs are 

estimated to be $44/yr. 

The total burden for the federal 

government (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) is estimated to be 4.6 labor 

hours per year, at a total labor cost of 

$239/yr. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) 

Because BSCP and clay ceramics 

facilities are not required to come into 

full compliance with the standards until 

3 years after promulgation, much of the 

respondent burden (e.g., performance 

tests, inspections, notification of 

compliance status, compliance reports, 

records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the 

fourth year following promulgation. 

For the BSCP Manufacturing 

NESHAP, we estimate an average 

annual recordkeeping and reporting 

burden of 48,674 labor hours per year, 

at a cost of $2,702,447/yr, for years 4 

through 6. We also estimate annualized 

capital costs of $606,760/yr and annual 

operating and maintenance costs of 

$206,872/yr over this period, for a total 

annualized cost of $813,632/yr. The 

average annual burden for the federal 

government for years 4 through 6 is 

estimated to be 3,891 labor hours per 

year, at a total labor cost of $204,550/ 

yr. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) 

For the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

NESHAP, we estimate an average 

annual recordkeeping and reporting 

burden of 2,323 labor hours per year, at 

a cost of $122,786/yr, for years 4 

through 6. We also estimate annualized 

capital costs of $72,050/yr and annual 

operating and maintenance costs of 

$27,069/yr over this period, for a total 

annualized cost of $99,119/yr. The 

average annual burden for the federal 

government for years 4 through 6 is 

estimated to be 180 labor hours per year, 

at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. 

(All costs are in 2011 dollars.) 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of 

the RFA, the EPA prepared an IRFA that 

examines the impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities along with 

regulatory alternatives that could 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65517 

minimize that impact. The complete 

IRFA is available for review in the 

docket and is summarized here. We 

convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice 

and recommendations from small entity 

representatives that potentially would 

be subject to the rule’s requirements. 

Summaries of the IRFA and Panel 

recommendations are included at 79 FR 

75669–75671. 

As required by section 604 of the 

RFA, the EPA prepared a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for 

this action. The FRFA addresses the 

issues raised by public comments on the 

IRFA for the proposed rule. The 

complete FRFA is included in Section 5 

of ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

NESHAP,’’ available for review in the 

docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291), and is summarized here. 

1. Need for the Rule 

The EPA is required under CAA 

section 112(d) to establish emission 

standards for each category or 

subcategory of major and area sources of 

HAP listed for regulation in section 

112(b). These standards are applicable 

to new or existing sources of HAP and 

shall require the maximum degree of 

emission reduction. In the 

Administrator’s judgment, the 

pollutants emitted from BSCP 

manufacturing facilities cause or 

contribute significantly to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health. Consequently, 

NESHAP for the BSCP source category 

are being finalized. 

2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the 

Rule 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to set emissions standards for 

HAP emitted by major stationary 

sources based on the performance of the 

MACT. The MACT standards for 

existing sources must be at least as 

stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of existing 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has emissions information) or the best 

performing five sources for source 

categories with less than 30 sources 

(CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For 

new sources, MACT standards must be 

at least as stringent as the control level 

achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source (CAA section 

112(d)(3)). The EPA also must consider 

more stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ 

control options. When considering 

beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must 

consider not only the maximum degree 

of reduction in emissions of HAP, but 

must take into account costs, energy and 

non-air environmental impacts when 

doing so. This rule is being proposed to 

comply with CAA section 112(d). 

3. Significant Issues Raised 

The EPA received comments on the 

proposed standards and requests for 

comment that were included based on 

SBAR Panel recommendations. See 

section V of this preamble and 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: 

Background Information for Final 

Rule—Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses’’ in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291 for more detailed 

comment summaries and responses. 

• Work practices for dioxin/furan: 

One commenter stated that work 

practices for dioxin/furan emissions 

from BSCP tunnel kilns are not lawful 

under the CAA, and, even if they were, 

the work practices proposed are not 

sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan 

emissions. Other commenters supported 

the proposed work practices for dioxin/ 

furan. 

Response: The EPA is finalizing work 

practices for dioxin/furan as proposed. 

The EPA’s response to the legal 

arguments made against work practice 

standards is presented in ‘‘National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing: Background 

Information for Final Rule—Summary of 

Public Comments and Responses’’ 

found in the docket (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0291). 

• Work practices for Hg and other 

metals: Several commenters responded 

to the EPA’s request for comment on 

work practices for Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals. Numerous commenters stated 

that the EPA should finalize work 

practices instead of numeric limits and 

provided support for their assertion that 

the numeric limits are technically and 

economically impracticable to enforce. 

Commenters also noted that the 

emissions reduced by these numeric 

standards are not justified by the high 

cost that would be incurred to meet the 

standards. 

Response: Emissions of Hg and nonHg HAP metals were detected using 

standard EPA test methods; therefore, 

the Hg and non-Hg HAP metals data sets 

do not meet the criteria for setting work 

practice standards under CAA section 

112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric 

standards for Hg and non-Hg HAP 

metals under CAA section rather than 

work practices. The final numeric 

standards have been revised since the 

proposal to account for new data from 

the industry (including data on the Hg 

content of raw materials), removal of 

test data found not to meet the 

requirements of the applicable data, and 

changes in the EPA’s approach to 

selecting the MACT floor pools (see 

section V.B.1 of this preamble for 

additional details). 

• Health-based standard for acid 

gases: Several commenters asserted that 

the EPA may not legally set CAA section 

112(d)(4) health-based standards for 

acid gases for BSCP facilities. Other 

commenters supported the EPA’s 

decision to propose health-based 

standards for acid gases but noted that 

the EPA’s approach was overly 

conservative and requested that the EPA 

consider setting multiple limits based 

on site characteristics. 

Response: The EPA is finalizing the 

health-based standards for acid gases as 

proposed. The EPA’s response to the 

legal arguments made against healthbased standards is presented in section 

V.A of this preamble. The EPA is not 

changing the HBEL from proposal, as 

the proposed HBEL provides low 

potential for both chronic and acute 

health effects. 

• Size subcategories for MACT floors: 

Several commenters requested that the 

EPA subcategorize by size for the nonHg HAP metal/PM MACT floor limits, 

as was proposed for Hg. 

Response: As part of recalculating the 

MACT floor limits based on the final 

data set, the EPA is finalizing separate 

limits for small and large kilns for nonHg HAP metals/PM as well as Hg. The 

EPA is also finalizing limits in three 

different formats for both pollutants to 

provide additional flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low 

metals content in the PM emissions. 

• Sawdust dryers: Several 

commenters requested that the EPA 

finalize a subcategory of sawdust-fired 

kilns venting to sawdust dryers. 

Commenters provided general 

descriptions of how the operation of 

these kilns is different than tunnel kilns 

and stated that there are only two 

operating that would be subject to the 

BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. 

Response: Although one commenter 

noted that stack testing of a sawdust 

dryer is being considered, commenters 

did not provide test data to demonstrate 

that emissions from sawdust dryers are 

different than other tunnel kilns. 

Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a 

subcategory of sawdust-fired kilns 

venting to sawdust dryers. 

• Periods of startup and shutdown: 

One commenter stated that work 

practices for periods of startup and 

shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns are not 

lawful under the CAA. Other 

commenters supported the proposal to 

provide work practices for periods of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65518 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

startup and shutdown, but suggested 

improvements to the standards to make 

them feasible for all tunnel kilns. 

Response: The EPA evaluated the 

comments and is finalizing work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown that reflect best practices 

for minimizing emissions during these 

periods (see section V.B.2 of this 

preamble for additional information). 

• MACT floor pool: Several 

commenters supported the EPA’s 

proposal to calculate MACT floor 

standards for PM based on the top 12 

percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., 

the best-performing sources with a FFbased APCD). One commenter asserted 

that the EPA’s proposal is unlawful and 

the EPA must consider other factors 

than the APCD type when setting MACT 

standards. 

Response: The EPA reviewed all the 

data used for the MACT floor for PM as 

a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals and 

found that some of the test data did not 

meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. 

When these data were removed, the EPA 

could no longer confirm that the data 

available to the agency represented all 

the best-performing sources. Therefore, 

the final PM and non-Hg HAP metals 

are based on the top 12 percent of 

sources for which we had test data, 

regardless of APCD type (see section 

V.B.1 of this preamble for additional 

details). 

4. SBA Comments 

The SBA’s Office of Advocacy 

supported the EPA’s proposals to set 

work practice standards and healthbased emission standards in all 

instances allowed by statute and 

suggested other areas of improvement. 

The comments on areas of improvement 

and the EPA’s responses are 

summarized below: 

• Hg standards: The EPA should 

pursue subcategorization by input (raw 

material) type and delay promulgation 

of a Hg standard to gather more 

information if needed. Standards may 

need to be combined with a 

significantly longer averaging time to 

allow for continuous compliance. 

Response: The EPA maintains that a 

delay in promulgation of an Hg standard 

is not appropriate for two reasons. First, 

under CAA section 112(e), the EPA was 

scheduled to complete standards for all 

source categories by 2000. The EPA’s 

2003 BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP was 

vacated, and that vacatur re-created the 

EPA’s obligation to set standards for the 

BSCP source category. Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300, 303–304 

(D.D.C. 2012). Under the consent decree 

in that case, as amended in August 

2014, the EPA was obligated to sign a 

notice of final rulemaking to set 

standards for the BSCP source category 

by September 24, 2015. 

Second, the EPA notes that following 

proposal, it received additional 

information on the Hg content of raw 

materials from facilities in the BSCP 

industry. This information did not 

provide the EPA with the information 

needed to establish subcategories based 

on the class or type of raw materials. 

However, the EPA has concluded that it 

has sufficient information to allow it to 

finalize Hg standards that account for 

the variability of Hg content in raw 

materials. Thus, the EPA’s conclusion is 

that there is no basis to delay 

promulgation of the Hg standards in 

order to gather more information. 

• Economic analysis: The economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities is significantly underestimated. 

Specifically, the EPA should not 

annualize costs at 7 percent over 20 

years because that does not reflect the 

financing options available to small 

entities, the EPA underestimated the 

cost for a facility to become a synthetic 

area source, and the EPA has 

underestimated the cost to comply with 

the Hg standards given the limited 

information the agency has on the 

performance of Hg controls in this 

industry. 

Response: The EPA standard 

engineering cost practice is to annualize 

over the expected life of the control 

equipment at 7 percent. The EPA does 

not have the data available to model the 

way a firm pays for an APCD because 

each firm has a different set of potential 

options for financing including debt 

financing, equity financing, and 

financing through retained earnings. 

The EPA acknowledges that some firms 

may not be able to borrow the money 

and some may close. The EPA’s closure 

analysis is quite uncertain, but we do 

not have the detailed firm-specific 

information necessary to refine the 

analysis. The EPA agrees that the costs 

to become a synthetic area source at 

proposal were underestimated, and the 

final rule impacts include testing costs 

for all facilities, as potential synthetic 

area sources would have to demonstrate 

that their emissions qualify them to 

apply for synthetic area status. Finally, 

the EPA must use the best information 

available to the agency to estimate the 

impact of the standards on all entities. 

The final Hg standards incorporate 

variability in the Hg content of raw 

materials, which is expected to ease the 

burdens on some small entities. 

5. Affected Small Entities 

Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP 

facilities, 36 parent companies are small 

businesses. The EPA computed the ratio 

of estimated compliance costs to 

company sales (cost-to-sales ratio) to 

measure the magnitude of potential 

impacts on small companies. Under the 

final standards, the EPA estimated that 

two to three small BSCP manufacturing 

facilities (two to four BSCP 

manufacturing facilities overall) are at 

significant risk of closure. 

6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements 

Respondents would be required to 

provide one-time and periodic 

notifications, including initial 

notification, notification of performance 

tests, and notification of compliance 

status. Respondents would also be 

required to submit semiannual reports 

documenting compliance with the rule 

and detailing any compliance issues, 

and they would be required to submit 

the results of performance tests to the 

EPA’s ERT. Respondents would be 

required to keep documentation 

supporting information included in 

these notifications and reports, as well 

as records of the operation and 

maintenance of affected sources and 

APCD at the facility. 

7. Significant Alternatives 

The EPA considered three major 

options for this final rule; see 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

NESHAP,’’ in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0291), for more information 

about the alternatives. Finalizing the 

proposed changes without revision is 

expected to have similar cost and 

emission reduction impacts to the 

standards the EPA is finalizing, with a 

similar number of closures (one to two 

small BSCP manufacturing facilities 

rather than two to three). However, for 

the various legal and technical reasons 

outlined in this preamble and ‘‘National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing: Background 

Information for Final Rule—Summary of 

Public Comments and Responses’’ in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291, the EPA determined that the PM/ 

non-Hg HAP metals and Hg standards 

should not be finalized as proposed. 

The other alternative considered 

included the same standards for acid 

gases and Hg that are being finalized but 

only provided one set of limits PM/nonHg HAP metals (i.e., did not provide 

separate sets of limits for small and 

large tunnel kilns). This alternative is 

expected to have significantly higher 

cost impacts than the standards the EPA 

is finalizing, along with a significantly 

higher number of closures (five to 10 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65519 

small BSCP manufacturing facilities 

rather than two to three small BSCP 

manufacturing facilities). Therefore, the 

EPA determined that it is necessary to 

exercise its discretion to subcategorize 

by kiln size to minimize the significant 

economic impact on small entities. 

In addition, the EPA is preparing a 

Small Entity Compliance Guide to help 

small entities comply with this rule. 

The guide will be available on the 

World Wide Web approximately 1 year 

after promulgation of the rule, at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/ 

brickpg.html. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in the UMRA, 2 

U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. The 

action imposes requirements on owners 

and operators of BSCP and clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities and 

not tribal governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because the EPA does not 

believe the environmental health risks 

or safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in the 

memoranda ‘‘Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission 

Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick 

and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category,’’ 

Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0291–0132 and ‘‘Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission 

Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing Source 

Category,’’ Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0290–0213. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action will not adversely directly 

affect productivity, competition, or 

prices in the energy sector. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. The EPA has decided to use 

the following four voluntary consensus 

standards as acceptable alternatives to 

the EPA test methods for the purpose of 

this rule. 

The EPA has decided to use ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual 

methods of measuring the oxygen or 

carbon dioxide content of the exhaust 

gas. This standard is acceptable as an 

alternative to Method 3A and 3B and is 

available from the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http:// 

www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990; or 

by telephone at (800) 843–2763. 

The EPA has also decided to use 

ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and 

Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 

Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method,’’ 

for its measurement of the concentration 

of gaseous HCl and HF and other 

gaseous chlorides and fluorides. This 

standard is acceptable as an alternative 

to Methods 26 and 26A. 

In addition, the EPA has decided to 

use ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound 

and Total Mercury Gas Generated from 

Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method),’’ for its determination 

of elemental, oxidized, particle-bound, 

and total Hg emissions. This standard is 

acceptable as an alternative to Method 

29 (portion for Hg only). 

Finally, the EPA has decided to use 

ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform Infrared (FTIR) 

Spectroscopy,’’ for its use of an 

extractive sampling system to direct 

stationary source effluent to an FTIR 

spectrometer for the identification and 

quantification of gaseous compounds. 

This standard is acceptable as an 

alternative to Method 320 with the 

following conditions: (1) The test plan 

preparation and implementation in the 

Annexes to ASTM D 6348–03, Sections 

A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2) 

in ASTM D6348–03 Annex A5 (Analyte 

Spiking Technique), the percent 

recovery (%R) must be determined for 

each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In 

order for the test data to be acceptable 

for a compound, %R must be greater 

than or equal to 70 percent and less than 

or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value 

does not meet this criterion for a target 

compound, the test data are not 

acceptable for that compound and the 

test must be repeated for that analyte 

(i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 

procedure should be adjusted before a 

retest). The %R value for each 

compound must be reported in the test 

report and all field measurements must 

be corrected with the calculated %R 

value for that compound by using the 

following equation: Reported Result = 

(Measured Concentration in the Stack × 

100)/%R. 

The standards ASTM D6735–01, 

ASTM D6784–02, and ASTM D6348–03 

are available from the American Society 

of Testing and Materials (ASTM) at 

http://www.astm.org; by mail at 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; or 

by telephone at (610) 832–9585. 

While the EPA identified ASTM 

D7520–13, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determining the Opacity in a Plume in 

an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere’’ as 

being potentially applicable as an 

alternative to Method 9 for measuring 

opacity from BSCP tunnel kilns, the 

agency decided not to use it. The use of 

this voluntary consensus standard 

would be impractical. The five 

provisions for the use of this standard 

appear to be based on the assumption 

that the optical camera will be used on 

a daily basis. However, this rulemaking 

does not include daily Method 9 tests. 

The rule requirements are such that a 

Method 9 observation would need to be 

made unexpectedly and only when the 

Method 22 test failed. It would be 

unreasonable to expect that a source 

would be making daily calibrations of 

the camera when its use would be so 

infrequent. Given that, it is unlikely that 

the camera could be made ready in the 

time specified for the Method 9 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65520 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

readings. Therefore, this standard is not 

usable based on the current 

requirements in this rulemaking. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. As 

explained in the December 2014 

proposal (79 FR 75672), the EPA 

determined that this final 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. 

Additionally, the agency has conducted 

a proximity analysis for this rulemaking, 

which is located in the docket. (See ‘‘EJ 

Screening Report for Brick and 

Structural Clay,’’ Docket Item No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0291–0102, and ‘‘EJ 

Screening Report for Clay Ceramics,’’ 

Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0290–0241.) 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each house of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 24, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as 

follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (g)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (h)(75); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(86) 

through (98) as paragraphs (h)(87) 

through (99), respectively; 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (h)(86); 

■ e. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (h)(88); and 

■ f. Revising paragraph (m)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], issued 

August 31, 1981, IBR approved for 

§§ 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and 

(h), 63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 

63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 

63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 

63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 

63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 

63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 

63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 

63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), 

and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart 

DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 

to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of 

subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart 

ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(75) ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 

2010), Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, 

including Annexes A1 through A8, 

(Approved October 1, 2010), IBR 

approved for tables 4 and 5 to subpart 

JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, 

tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU, 

and appendix B to subpart UUUUU. 

* * * * * 

(86) ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 

2009), Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and 

Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 

Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, 

IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to 

subpart JJJJJ and tables 4 and 6 to 

subpart KKKKK. 

* * * * * 

(88) ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008), Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound 

and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), 

(Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved 

for §§ 63.11646(a), 63.11647(a) and (d), 

tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart 

DDDDD, tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, 

tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, table 

4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart 

UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart 

UUUUU. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(2) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, September 1997, 

IBR approved for §§ 63.548(e), 

63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 

63.11224(f). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Part 63 is amended by revising 

subpart JJJJJ to read as follows: 

Subpart JJJJJ—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing 

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

63.8380 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.8390 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

63.8395 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice 

Standards 

63.8405 What emission limitations and 

work practice standards must I meet? 

63.8410 What are my options for meeting 

the emission limitations and work 

practice standards? 

General Compliance Requirements 

63.8420 What are my general requirements 

for complying with this subpart? 

63.8425 What do I need to know about 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plans? 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

63.8435 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests? 

63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent 

performance tests? 

63.8445 How do I conduct performance 

tests and establish operating limits? 

63.8450 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65521 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data 

to demonstrate continuous compliance? 

63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

63.8480 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

63.8485 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

63.8490 What records must I keep? 

63.8495 In what form and for how long 

must I keep my records? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.8505 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

63.8510 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

63.8515 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Emission 

Limits 

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Operating 

Limits 

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Work 

Practice Standards 

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63—Initial 

Compliance with Emission Limitations 

and Work Practice Standards 

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Continuous Compliance with Emission 

Limitations and Work Practice Standards 

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Compliance Dates 

Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Requirements for Notifications 

Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Requirements for Reports 

Table 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart JJJJJ 

Subpart JJJJJ—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 63.8380 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes national 

emission limitations for hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emitted from brick and 

structural clay products (BSCP) 

manufacturing facilities. This subpart 

also establishes requirements to 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations. 

§ 63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart? 

You are subject to this subpart if you 

own or operate a BSCP manufacturing 

facility that is, is located at, or is part 

of, a major source of HAP emissions 

according to the criteria in paragraphs 

(a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) A BSCP manufacturing facility is 

a plant site that manufactures brick 

(including, but not limited to, face brick, 

structural brick, and brick pavers); clay 

pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall 

tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional 

clay products. Brick and structural clay 

products manufacturing facilities 

typically process raw clay and shale, 

form the processed materials into bricks 

or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or 

shapes. A plant site that manufactures 

refractory products, as defined in 

§ 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined 

in § 63.8665, is not a BSCP 

manufacturing facility. 

(b) A major source of HAP emissions 

is any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources within a contiguous 

area under common control that emits 

or has the potential to emit any single 

HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 

tons) or more per year or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 

megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. 

§ 63.8390 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

(a) This subpart applies to each 

existing, new, or reconstructed affected 

source at a BSCP manufacturing facility. 

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, 

the affected sources are described in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP 

manufacturing facility are an affected 

source. For the remainder of this 

subpart, a tunnel kiln with a design 

capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 

megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons 

per hour (tph)) of fired product will be 

called a large tunnel kiln, and a tunnel 

kiln with a design capacity less than 

9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will 

be called a small tunnel kiln. 

(2) Each periodic kiln is an affected 

source. 

(c) Process units not subject to the 

requirements of this subpart are listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for 

setting glazes on previously fired 

products are not subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(2) Raw material processing and 

handling. 

(3) Dryers. 

(4) Sources covered by subparts 

KKKKK and SSSSS of this part. 

(d) A source is a new affected source 

if construction of the affected source 

began after December 18, 2014, and you 

met the applicability criteria at the time 

you began construction. 

(e) An affected source is reconstructed 

if you meet the criteria as defined in 

§ 63.2. 

(f) An affected source is existing if it 

is not new or reconstructed. 

§ 63.8395 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) You must comply with this 

subpart no later than the compliance 

dates in Table 7 to this subpart. 

(b) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.8480 according to 

the schedule in § 63.8480 and in subpart 

A of this part. Some of the notifications 

must be submitted before you are 

required to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart. 

Emission Limitations and Work 

Practice Standards 

§ 63.8405 What emission limitations and 

work practice standards must I meet? 

(a) You must meet each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) You must meet each operating 

limit in Table 2 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

(c) You must meet each work practice 

standard in Table 3 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

§ 63.8410 What are my options for meeting 

the emission limitations and work practice 

standards? 

(a) To meet the emission limitations 

in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you 

must use one or more of the options 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) Emissions control system. Use an 

emissions capture and collection system 

and an air pollution control device 

(APCD) and demonstrate that the 

resulting emissions meet the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and 

that the capture and collection system 

and APCD meet the applicable operating 

limits in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP 

raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and 

demonstrate that the resulting emissions 

or emissions reductions meet the 

emission limits in Table 1 to this 

subpart. 

(b) To meet the work practice 

standards for affected periodic kilns, 

you must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart. 

(c) To meet the work practice 

standards for dioxins/furans for affected 

tunnel kilns, you must comply with the 

requirements listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(d) To meet the work practice 

standards for affected tunnel kilns 

during periods of startup and shutdown, 

you must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65522 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

General Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.8420 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must be in compliance with 

the emission limitations (including 

operating limits) in this subpart at all 

times, except during periods that you 

are approved for and in compliance 

with the alternative standard for routine 

control device maintenance as specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section, and 

except during periods of start-up and 

shutdown, at which time you must 

comply with the applicable work 

practice standard specified in Table 3 to 

this subpart. 

(b) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

you to make any further efforts to 

reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been 

achieved. Determination of whether a 

source is operating in compliance with 

operation and maintenance 

requirements 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. During the period between 

the compliance date specified for your 

affected source in § 63.8395 and the date 

upon which continuous monitoring 

systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous 

parameter monitoring systems) have 

been installed and verified and any 

applicable operating limits have been 

set, you must maintain a log detailing 

the operation and maintenance of the 

process and emissions control 

equipment. 

(c) For each affected kiln that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare and implement a written 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan according to the 

requirements in § 63.8425. 

(d) If you own or operate an affected 

kiln that is subject to the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart and 

must perform routine maintenance on 

the control device for that kiln, you may 

bypass the kiln control device and 

continue operating the kiln subject to 

the alternative standard established in 

this paragraph upon approval by the 

Administrator and provided you satisfy 

the conditions listed in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) You must request to use the 

routine control device maintenance 

alternative standard from the 

Administrator no later than 120 

calendar days before the compliance 

date specified in § 63.8395. Your request 

must justify the need for the routine 

maintenance on the control device and 

the time required to accomplish the 

maintenance activities, describe the 

maintenance activities and the 

frequency of the maintenance activities, 

explain why the maintenance cannot be 

accomplished during kiln shutdowns, 

provide information stating whether the 

continued operation of the affected 

source will result in fewer emissions 

than shutting the source down while the 

maintenance is performed, describe how 

you plan to comply with paragraph (b) 

of this section during the maintenance, 

and provide any other documentation 

required by the Administrator. 

(2) The routine control device 

maintenance must not exceed 4 percent 

of the annual operating uptime for each 

kiln. 

(3) The request for the routine control 

device maintenance alternative 

standard, if approved by the 

Administrator, must be incorporated by 

reference in and attached to the affected 

source’s title V permit. 

(4) You must minimize HAP 

emissions during the period when the 

kiln is operating and the control device 

is offline by complying with the 

applicable standard in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(5) You must minimize the time 

period during which the kiln is 

operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(e) You must be in compliance with 

the work practice standards in this 

subpart at all times. 

(f) You must be in compliance with 

the provisions of subpart A of this part, 

except as noted in Table 10 to this 

subpart. 

§ 63.8425 What do I need to know about 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plans? 

(a) For each affected kiln that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare, implement, and revise as 

necessary an OM&M plan that includes 

the information in paragraph (b) of this 

section. Your OM&M plan must be 

available for inspection by the delegated 

authority upon request. 

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as 

a minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this 

section. 

(1) Each process and APCD to be 

monitored, the type of monitoring 

device that will be used, and the 

operating parameters that will be 

monitored. 

(2) A monitoring schedule that 

specifies the frequency that the 

parameter values will be determined 

and recorded. 

(3) The limits for each parameter that 

represent continuous compliance with 

the emission limitations in § 63.8405. 

The limits must be based on values of 

the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests. 

(4) Procedures for the proper 

operation and routine and long-term 

maintenance of each APCD, including a 

maintenance and inspection schedule 

that is consistent with the 

manufacturer’s recommendations. 

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS 

sampling probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last APCD). 

(6) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction system. 

(7) Continuous monitoring system 

performance evaluation procedures and 

acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(8) Procedures for the proper 

operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with 

the requirements in §§ 63.8450 and 

63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). 

(9) Continuous monitoring system 

data quality assurance procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or 

operator shall keep these written 

procedures on record for the life of the 

affected source or until the affected 

source is no longer subject to the 

provisions of this part, to be made 

available for inspection, upon request, 

by the Administrator. If the performance 

evaluation plan in § 63.8(d)(2) is 

revised, the owner or operator shall 

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions 

of the performance evaluation plan on 

record to be made available for 

inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator, for a period of 5 years 

after each revision to the plan. The 

program of corrective action should be 

included in the plan required under 

§ 63.8(d)(2). 

(10) Continuous monitoring system 

recordkeeping and reporting procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§§ 63.8485 and 63.8490. 

(11) Procedures for responding to 

operating parameter deviations, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65523 

including the procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Procedures for determining the 

cause of the operating parameter 

deviation. 

(ii) Actions necessary for correcting 

the deviation and returning the 

operating parameters to the allowable 

limits. 

(iii) Procedures for recording the 

times that the deviation began and 

ended and corrective actions were 

initiated and completed. 

(12) Procedures for keeping records to 

document compliance. 

(13) If you operate an affected kiln 

and you plan to take the kiln control 

device out of service for routine 

maintenance, as specified in 

§ 63.8420(d), the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP 

emissions from the kiln during periods 

of routine maintenance of the kiln 

control device when the kiln is 

operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the 

duration of any period of routine 

maintenance on the kiln control device 

when the kiln is operating and the 

control device is offline. 

(c) Changes to the operating limits in 

your OM&M plan require a new 

performance test. If you are revising an 

operating limit parameter value, you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Submit a notification of 

performance test to the Administrator as 

specified in § 63.7(b). 

(2) After completing the performance 

tests to demonstrate that compliance 

with the emission limits can be 

achieved at the revised operating limit 

parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised 

operating limits as part of the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

required under § 63.9(h). 

(d) If you are revising the inspection 

and maintenance procedures in your 

OM&M plan, you do not need to 

conduct a new performance test. 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.8435 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests? 

For each affected kiln that is subject 

to the emission limits specified in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must conduct 

performance tests within 180 calendar 

days after the compliance date that is 

specified for your source in § 63.8395 

and according to the provisions in 

§ 63.7(a)(2). 

§ 63.8440 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

(a) For each affected kiln that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

conduct a performance test before 

renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating 

permit or at least every 5 years 

following the initial performance test. 

(b) You must conduct a performance 

test when you want to change the 

parameter value for any operating limit 

specified in your OM&M plan. 

§ 63.8445 How do I conduct performance 

tests and establish operating limits? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test in Table 4 to this 

subpart that applies to you. 

(b) Before conducting the performance 

test, you must install and calibrate all 

monitoring equipment. 

(c) Each performance test must be 

conducted according to the 

requirements in § 63.7 and under the 

specific conditions in Table 4 to this 

subpart. 

(d) Performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to you based on 

representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and 

shutdown. You may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. You must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Upon request, you shall make available 

to the Administrator such records as 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

(e) You must conduct at least three 

separate test runs for each performance 

test required in this section, as specified 

in § 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at 

least 1 hour. 

(f) You must use the data gathered 

during the performance test and the 

equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of 

this section to determine compliance 

with the emission limitations. 

(1) To determine compliance with the 

production-based particulate matter 

(PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

calculate your mass emissions per unit 

of production for each test run using 

Equation 1: 

Where: 

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms 

(pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) 

of fired product 

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or 

Hg) during each performance test run, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

P = production rate during each performance 

test run, megagrams (tons) of fired 

product per hour. 

(2) To determine compliance with the 

health-based standard for acid gas HAP 

for BSCP manufacturing facilities in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must: 

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF, HCl, and Cl2 for each 

tunnel kiln at your facility using 

Equation 2: 

Where: 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

ECl2 = emissions of Cl2, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER26OC15.014</GPH> ER26OC15.015</GPH>
65524 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 

micrograms per cubic meter 

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns 

at your facility, sum the HCl-equivalent 

values for all tunnel kilns at the facility 

using Equation 3: 

Where: 

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility 

(iii) Compare this value to the healthbased standard in Table 1 to this 

subpart. 

(g) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart that applies to you as 

specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section and in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD 

installed on your kiln, calculate the 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF, HCl, and Cl2 for each 

tunnel kiln at your facility using 

Equation 4: 

Where: 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams 

(tons) of fired product per hour 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 

micrograms per cubic meter 

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns 

at your facility, sum the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent values for all 

tunnel kilns at the facility using 

Equation 5: 

Where: 

Emax total = maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for total of all kilns 

at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility 

(iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln 

at your facility and the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the 

HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart, determine the maximum 

process rate for the tunnel kiln using 

Equation 6 that would ensure the total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions remain at or below 

the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum 

process rate would become your 

operating limit for process rate and must 

be included in your OM&M plan. 

Where: 

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, 

megagrams (tons) per hour 

HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart, 26 kilograms (57 pounds) 

per hour 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per 

megagram (ton) of fired product 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 

micrograms per cubic meter 

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns 

at your facility and the total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the 

HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart, determine the combination of 

maximum process rates that would 

ensure that total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent remains at or 

below the HCl-equivalent limit. The 

maximum process rates would become 

your operating limits for process rate 

and must be included in your OM&M 

plan. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER26OC15.016</GPH> ER26OC15.017</GPH> ER26OC15.018</GPH> ER26OC15.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65525 

(2) [Reserved] 

(h) For each affected kiln that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not 

addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or 

that is using process changes as a means 

of meeting the emission limits in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must meet the 

requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Submit a request for approval of 

alternative monitoring procedures to the 

Administrator no later than the 

notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) A description of the alternative 

APCD or process changes. 

(ii) The type of monitoring device or 

procedure that will be used. 

(iii) The operating parameters that 

will be monitored. 

(iv) The frequency that the operating 

parameter values will be determined 

and recorded to establish continuous 

compliance with the operating limits. 

(2) Establish site-specific operating 

limits during the performance test based 

on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring 

procedures request and, as applicable, 

as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. 

§ 63.8450 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) You must install, operate, and 

maintain each CMS according to your 

OM&M plan and the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each CMS according to your OM&M 

plan. 

(2) The CMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. To 

have a valid hour of data, you must have 

at least three of four equally spaced data 

values (or at least 75 percent if you 

collect more than four data values per 

hour) for that hour (not including 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-ofcontrol periods, or periods of routine 

control device maintenance covered by 

the routine control device maintenance 

alternative standard as specified in 

§ 63.8420(d)). 

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour 

block averages of all recorded readings, 

calculated after every 3 hours of 

operation as the average of the previous 

3 operating hours. To calculate the 

average for each 3-hour average period, 

you must have at least 75 percent of the 

recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device 

maintenance covered by the routine 

control device maintenance alternative 

standard as specified in § 63.8420(d)). 

(4) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(5) At all times, maintain the 

monitoring equipment including, but 

not limited to, maintaining necessary 

parts for routine repairs of the 

monitoring equipment. 

(b) For each liquid flow measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a 

position that provides a representative 

flowrate. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of 

the liquid flowrate. 

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a 

flow sensor calibration check. 

(c) For each pressure measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this 

section. 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or 

as close to a position that provides a 

representative measurement of the 

pressure. 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of 

water or a transducer with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of 

the pressure range. 

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to 

ensure that it is not plugged. 

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge 

calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure range, conduct 

calibration checks or install a new 

pressure sensor. 

(7) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity, all electrical 

connections for continuity, and all 

mechanical connections for leakage. 

(d) For each pH measurement device, 

you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration at 

one point daily. 

(4) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity and all 

electrical connections for continuity. 

(e) For each bag leak detection system, 

you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this 

section. 

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak 

detection system must be installed, 

calibrated, operated, and maintained 

according to EPA–454/R–98–015, 

‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14). Other types of bag leak 

detection systems must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in 

a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations. 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per 

actual cubic foot) or less. 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide an output of 

relative PM loadings. 

(4) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with a device to 

continuously record the output signal 

from the sensor. 

(5) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an audible alarm 

system that will sound automatically 

when an increase in relative PM 

emissions over a preset level is detected. 

The alarm must be located where it is 

easily heard by plant operating 

personnel. 

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter 

systems, a bag leak detector must be 

installed in each baghouse compartment 

or cell. 

(7) For negative pressure or induced 

air fabric filters, the bag leak detector 

must be installed downstream of the 

fabric filter. 

(8) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(9) The baseline output must be 

established by adjusting the range and 

the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time according to section 

5.0 of the EPA–454/R–98–015, ‘‘Fabric 

Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(10) Following initial adjustment of 

the system, the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted 

except as detailed in your OM&M plan. 

In no case may the sensitivity be 

increased by more than 100 percent or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65526 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

decreased more than 50 percent over a 

365-day period unless such adjustment 

follows a complete fabric filter 

inspection that demonstrates that the 

fabric filter is in good operating 

condition, as defined in section 5.2 of 

the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14). Record each adjustment. 

(11) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon 

feed rate measurement device, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Locate the measurement device in 

a position that provides a representative 

feed rate measurement. 

(2) At least semiannually, conduct a 

calibration check. 

(g) For each limestone feed system on 

a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and (5) of this 

section and must ensure on a monthly 

basis that the feed system replaces 

limestone at least as frequently as the 

schedule set during the performance 

test. 

(h) For each temperature 

measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (5) and paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

(1) Locate the measurement device in 

a position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) Use a measurement device with a 

minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the 

temperature being measured. 

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a 

calibration check. 

(i) Requests for approval of alternate 

monitoring procedures must meet the 

requirements in §§ 63.8445(h) and 

63.8(f). 

§ 63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

and work practice standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard 

that applies to you according to Table 5 

to this subpart. 

(b) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart that applies to you 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.8445 and Table 4 to this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.8480(c). 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.8465 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

(a) You must monitor and collect data 

according to this section. 

(b) Except for periods of monitor 

malfunctions, associated repairs, and 

required quality assurance or control 

activities (including, as applicable, 

calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must 

monitor continuously (or collect data at 

all required intervals) at all times that 

the affected source is operating. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device 

maintenance as specified in § 63.8420(d) 

when the affected source is operating. 

(c) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, out-of-control 

periods, or required quality assurance or 

control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. You must use 

all the valid data collected during all 

other periods in assessing compliance. 

Any averaging period for which you do 

not have valid monitoring data and such 

data are required constitutes a deviation 

from the monitoring requirements. 

§ 63.8470 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limit, 

operating limit, and work practice 

standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this 

subpart that applies to you according to 

the methods specified in Table 6 to this 

subpart. 

(b) For each affected kiln that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not 

addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or 

that is using process changes as a means 

of meeting the emission limits in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each 

emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 

and each operating limit established as 

required in § 63.8445(h)(2) according to 

the methods specified in your approved 

alternative monitoring procedures 

request, as described in §§ 63.8445(h)(1) 

and 63.8(f). 

(c) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet each emission 

limit and each operating limit in this 

subpart that applies to you. These 

instances are deviations from the 

emission limitations in this subpart. 

These deviations must be reported 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.8485(c)(9). 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e)(1) VE testing. You must 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the operating limits in Table 2 to 

this subpart for visible emissions (VE) 

from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled 

or equipped with DLA, dry lime 

injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime 

scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF), or other 

dry control device by monitoring VE at 

each kiln stack according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) 

through (v) of this section. 

(i) Perform daily VE observations of 

each kiln stack according to the 

procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7. You must conduct 

the Method 22 test while the affected 

source is operating under normal 

conditions. The duration of each 

Method 22 test must be at least 15 

minutes. 

(ii) If VE are observed during any 

daily test conducted using Method 22 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, you 

must promptly conduct an opacity test, 

according to the procedures of Method 

9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4. If 

opacity greater than 10 percent is 

observed, you must initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan. 

(iii) You may decrease the frequency 

of Method 22 testing from daily to 

weekly for a kiln stack if one of the 

conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or 

(B) of this section is met. 

(A) No VE are observed in 30 

consecutive daily Method 22 tests for 

any kiln stack; or 

(B) No opacity greater than 10 percent 

is observed during any of the Method 9 

tests for any kiln stack. 

(iv) If VE are observed during any 

weekly test and opacity greater than 10 

percent is observed in the subsequent 

Method 9 test, you must promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions 

according to your OM&M plan, resume 

testing of that kiln stack following 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7, on a daily basis, as described in 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and 

maintain that schedule until one of the 

conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or 

(B) of this section is met, at which time 

you may again decrease the frequency of 

Method 22 testing to a weekly basis. 

(v) If greater than 10 percent opacity 

is observed during any test conducted 

using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4, you must report these 

deviations by following the 

requirements in § 63.8485. 

(2) Alternative to VE testing. In lieu of 

meeting the requirements under 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, you may 

conduct a PM test at least once every 

year following the initial performance 

test, according to the procedures of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65527 

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–3, and the provisions of § 63.8445(e) 

and (f)(1). 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

§ 63.8480 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) You must submit all of the 

notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 

63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e), (g)(1), 

and (h) that apply to you, by the dates 

specified. 

(b) You must submit all of the 

notifications specified in Table 8 to this 

subpart that apply to you, by the dates 

specified. 

(c) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration as specified 

in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, your 

Notification of Compliance Status as 

specified in Table 8 to this subpart must 

include the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) The requirements in § 63.9(h)(2)(i). 

(2) The operating limit parameter 

values established for each affected 

source with supporting documentation 

and a description of the procedure used 

to establish the values. 

(3) For each APCD that includes a 

fabric filter, if a bag leak detection 

system is used, analysis and supporting 

documentation demonstrating 

conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for bag leak detection 

systems in § 63.8450(e). 

§ 63.8485 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(a) You must submit each report in 

Table 9 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report by the date 

in Table 9 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section. 

(1) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.8395 and 

ending on either June 30 or December 

31. The first reporting period must be at 

least 6 months, but less than 12 months. 

For example, if your compliance date is 

March 1, then the first semiannual 

reporting period would begin on March 

1 and end on December 31. 

(2) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked or delivered no later than 

July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and 

December 31, respectively. 

(3) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(4) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked or delivered 

no later than July 31 or January 31 for 

compliance periods ending on June 30 

and December 31, respectively. 

(5) For each affected source that is 

subject to permitting regulations 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71, if the permitting authority has 

established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the 

first and subsequent compliance reports 

according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of the 

dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (8) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after 

reasonable inquiry, the statements and 

information in the report are true, 

accurate, and complete. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(4) A description of control device 

maintenance performed while the 

control device was offline and the kiln 

controlled by the control device was 

operating, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) The date and time when the 

control device was shut down and 

restarted. 

(ii) Identification of the kiln that was 

operating and the number of hours that 

the kiln operated while the control 

device was offline. 

(iii) A statement of whether or not the 

control device maintenance was 

included in your approved routine 

control device maintenance request 

developed as specified in § 63.8420(d). 

If the control device maintenance was 

included in your approved routine 

control device maintenance request, 

then you must report the information in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) The total amount of time that the 

kiln controlled by the control device 

operated during the current semiannual 

compliance period and during the 

previous semiannual compliance 

period. 

(B) The amount of time that each kiln 

controlled by the control device 

operated while the control device was 

offline for maintenance covered under 

the routine control device maintenance 

alternative standard during the current 

semiannual compliance period and 

during the previous semiannual 

compliance period. 

(C) Based on the information recorded 

under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of 

this section, compute the annual 

percent of kiln operating uptime during 

which the control device was offline for 

routine maintenance using Equation 7. 

Where: 

RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime 

during which control device was offline 

for routine control device maintenance 

DTp = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance alternative standard for the 

previous semiannual compliance period 

DTc = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance alternative standard for the 

current semiannual compliance period 

KUp = Kiln uptime for the previous 

semiannual compliance period 

KUc = Kiln uptime for the current 

semiannual compliance period 

(5) A report of the most recent burner 

tune-up conducted to comply with the 

dioxin/furan work practice standard in 

Table 3 to this subpart. 

(6) If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations (emission limits or 

operating limits) that apply to you, the 

compliance report must contain a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period. 

(7) If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, the 

compliance report must contain a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-ofcontrol during the reporting period. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER26OC15.020</GPH>
65528 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) The first compliance report must 

contain the startup push rate for each 

kiln, the minimum APCD inlet 

temperature for each APCD, and the 

temperature profile for each kiln 

without an APCD. 

(9) For each deviation that occurs at 

an affected source, report such events in 

the compliance report by including the 

information in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The date, time, and duration of the 

deviation. 

(ii) A list of the affected sources or 

equipment for which the deviation 

occurred. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

any emission limit, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

(d) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to 

comply with the emission limitations in 

this subpart, you must include the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and (c)(9), and paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (11) of this section. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

and routine control device maintenance. 

(1) The total operating time of each 

affected source during the reporting 

period. 

(2) The date and time that each CMS 

was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was out-of-control, including 

the pertinent information in your 

OM&M plan. 

(4) Whether each deviation occurred 

during routine control device 

maintenance covered in your approved 

routine control device maintenance 

alternative standard or during another 

period, and the cause of each deviation 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable). 

(5) A description of any corrective 

action taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that were due to 

startup, shutdown, control equipment 

problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown 

causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

CMS downtime during the reporting 

period and the total duration of CMS 

downtime as a percent of the total 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(8) A brief description of the process 

units. 

(9) A brief description of the CMS. 

(10) The date of the latest CMS 

certification or audit. 

(11) A description of any changes in 

CMS, processes, or control equipment 

since the last reporting period. 

(e) If you have obtained a title V 

operating permit according to 40 CFR 

part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must 

report all deviations as defined in this 

subpart in the semiannual monitoring 

report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a 

compliance report according to Table 9 

to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report 

required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 

40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 

compliance report includes all required 

information concerning deviations from 

any emission limitation (including any 

operating limit), then submitting the 

compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations 

in the semiannual monitoring report. 

However, submitting a compliance 

report will not otherwise affect any 

obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to 

the permitting authority. 

(f) Within 60 calendar days after the 

date of completing each performance 

test (as defined in § 63.2) required by 

this subpart, you must submit the 

results of the performance test following 

the procedure specified in either 

paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html) at the time of the test, you 

must submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA via the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http://

cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data 

must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT Web site. If you claim 

that some of the performance test 

information being submitted is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

consistent with the XML schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

§ 63.8490 What records must I keep? 

(a) You must keep the records listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) A copy of each notification and 

report that you submitted to comply 

with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted, 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(2) Records of performance tests as 

required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(3) Records relating to control device 

maintenance and documentation of your 

approved routine control device 

maintenance request, if you request to 

use the alternative standard under 

§ 63.8420(d). 

(b) You must keep the records 

required in Table 6 to this subpart to 

show continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you. 

(c) You must also maintain the 

records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (11) of this section. 

(1) For each bag leak detection 

system, records of each alarm, the time 

of the alarm, the time corrective action 

was initiated and completed, and a brief 

description of the cause of the alarm 

and the corrective action taken. 

(2) For each deviation, record the 

information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) The date, time, and duration of the 

deviation. 

(ii) A list of the affected sources or 

equipment. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

any emission limit and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

(iv) Actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8420(b) and any corrective actions 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65529 

(3) For each affected source, records 

of production rates on a fired-product 

basis. 

(4) Records for any approved 

alternative monitoring or test 

procedures. 

(5) Records of maintenance and 

inspections performed on the APCD. 

(6) Current copies of your OM&M 

plan, including any revisions, with 

records documenting conformance. 

(7) Logs of the information required in 

paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this 

section to document proper operation of 

your periodic kiln. 

(i) Records of the firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in each periodic kiln. If all 

periodic kilns use the same time and 

temperature cycles, one copy may be 

maintained for each kiln. Reference 

numbers must be assigned to use in log 

sheets. 

(ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that 

details the type of product fired in each 

batch, the corresponding time and 

temperature protocol reference number, 

and an indication of whether the 

appropriate time and temperature cycle 

was fired. 

(iii) For each periodic kiln, a log of 

the actual tonnage of product fired in 

the periodic kiln and an indication of 

whether the tonnage was below the 

maximum tonnage for that specific kiln. 

(8) Logs of the maintenance 

procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance 

requirements of the periodic kiln work 

practice standards specified in Table 3 

to this subpart. 

(9) Records of burner tune-ups used to 

comply with the dioxin/furan work 

practice standard for tunnel kilns. 

(10) For periods of startup and 

shutdown, records of the following 

information: 

(i) The date, time, and duration of 

each startup and/or shutdown period, 

recording the periods when the affected 

source was subject to the standard 

applicable to startup and shutdown. 

(ii) For periods of startup, the kiln 

push rate and kiln exhaust temperature 

prior to the time the kiln exhaust 

reaches the minimum APCD inlet 

temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) 

or the kiln temperature profile is 

attained (for a kiln with no APCD). 

(iii) For periods of shutdown, the kiln 

push rate and kiln exhaust temperature 

after the time the kiln exhaust falls 

below the minimum APCD inlet 

temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) 

or the kiln temperature profile is no 

longer maintained (for a kiln with no 

APCD). 

(11) All site-specific parameters, 

temperature profiles, and procedures 

required to be established or developed 

according to the applicable work 

practice standards in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

§ 63.8495 In what form and for how long 

must I keep my records? 

(a) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective 

action, report, or record. 

(c) You must keep each record onsite 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may 

keep the records offsite for the 

remaining 3 years. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.8505 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 10 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 

§ 63.8510 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a 

delegated authority such as your state, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

your state, local, or tribal agency, then 

that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 

out if implementation and enforcement 

of this subpart is delegated to your state, 

local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are 

not transferred to the state, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (6) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

applicability requirements in §§ 63.8385 

and 63.8390, the compliance date 

requirements in § 63.8395, and the nonopacity emission limitations in 

§ 63.8405. 

(2) Approval of major changes to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major changes to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of major changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

(5) Approval of an alternative to any 

electronic reporting to the EPA required 

by this subpart. 

(6) Approval of a routine control 

device maintenance request under 

§ 63.8420(d). 

§ 63.8515 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, 

and in this section as follows: 

Air pollution control device (APCD) 

means any equipment that reduces the 

quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to 

the air. 

Bag leak detection system means an 

instrument that is capable of monitoring 

PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 

filter in order to detect bag failures. A 

bag leak detection system includes, but 

is not limited to, an instrument that 

operates on triboelectric, lightscattering, light-transmittance, or other 

effects to monitor relative PM loadings. 

Brick and structural clay products 

(BSCP) manufacturing facility means a 

plant site that manufactures brick 

(including, but not limited to, face brick, 

structural brick, and brick pavers); clay 

pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall 

tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional 

clay products. Brick and structural clay 

products manufacturing facilities 

typically process raw clay and shale, 

form the processed materials into bricks 

or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or 

shapes. A plant site that manufactures 

refractory products, as defined in 40 

CFR 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as 

defined in 40 CFR 63.8665, is not a 

BSCP manufacturing facility. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart 

including, but not limited to, any 

emission limitation (including any 

operating limit) or work practice 

standard; or 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

for any affected source required to 

obtain such a permit. 

Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) 

means an APCD that includes 

continuous injection of hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a duct or reaction 

chamber followed by a fabric filter. 

Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/

FF) means an APCD that includes 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65530 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

continuous injection of humidified 

hydrated lime or other sorbent into a 

reaction chamber followed by a fabric 

filter. These systems typically include 

recirculation of some of the sorbent. 

Dry limestone adsorber (DLA) means 

an APCD that includes a limestone 

storage bin, a reaction chamber that is 

essentially a packed tower filled with 

limestone, and may or may not include 

a peeling drum that mechanically 

scrapes reacted limestone to regenerate 

the stone for reuse. 

Emission limitation means any 

emission limit or operating limit. 

Fabric filter means an APCD used to 

capture PM by filtering a gas stream 

through filter media; also known as a 

baghouse. 

Initial startup means: 

(1) For a new or reconstructed tunnel 

kiln controlled with a DLA, the time at 

which the temperature in the kiln first 

reaches 260 °C (500 °F) and the kiln 

contains product; or 

(2) for a new or reconstructed tunnel 

kiln controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or 

wet scrubber (WS), the time at which 

the kiln first reaches a level of 

production that is equal to 75 percent of 

the kiln design capacity or 12 months 

after the affected source begins firing 

BSCP, whichever is earlier. 

Fired product means brick or 

structural clay products that have gone 

through the firing process via kilns. 

Kiln exhaust process stream means 

the portion of the exhaust from a tunnel 

kiln that exhausts directly to the 

atmosphere (or to an APCD), rather than 

to a sawdust dryer. 

Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln 

(existing, new, or reconstructed) with a 

design capacity equal to or greater than 

9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. 

Minimum APCD inlet temperature 

means the minimum temperature that 

kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD 

that ensures the long-term integrity of 

the APCD. 

Particulate matter (PM) means, for 

purposes of this subpart, emissions of 

PM that serve as a measure of total 

particulate emissions, as measured by 

Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8), and as a surrogate for 

non-mercury metal HAP contained in 

the particulates including, but not 

limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, nickel, and selenium. 

Periodic kiln means a batch firing 

kiln. 

Plant site means all contiguous or 

adjoining property that is under 

common control, including properties 

that are separated only by a road or 

other public right-of-way. Common 

control includes properties that are 

owned, leased, or operated by the same 

entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any 

combination thereof. 

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 

70.2. 

Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln 

(existing, new, or reconstructed) with a 

design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 

tph) of fired product. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an affected source and starting the 

production process. 

Startup push rate means the kiln push 

rate required to bring the kiln to the 

proper operating temperature during 

startup. 

Tunnel kiln means any continuous 

kiln that is used to fire BSCP. Some 

tunnel kilns have two process streams, 

including a process stream that exhausts 

directly to the atmosphere or to an 

APCD, and a process stream in which 

the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust 

dryer where it is used to dry sawdust 

before being emitted to the atmosphere. 

Tunnel kiln design capacity means 

the maximum amount of brick, in Mg 

(tons), that a kiln is designed to produce 

in one year divided by the number of 

hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into 

account the void space in the brick, the 

push rate for the kiln, and the stacking 

pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is 

modified to increase the capacity, the 

design capacity is considered to be the 

capacity following modifications. 

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD 

that uses water, which may include 

caustic additives or other chemicals, as 

the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any 

of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust 

gases and the sorbent. 

Work practice standard means any 

design, equipment, work practice, 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to 

section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. 

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63 

As stated in § 63.8405, you must meet 

each emission limit in the following 

table that applies to you: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS

For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . Or you must comply with the following . . . 

1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at facility, including all process streams.HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not exceed 26 

kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent, under the healthbased standard, as determined using Equations 

2 and 3.

Not applicable. 

2. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity 

≥10 tons per hour (tph) of fired product), 

including all process streams.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg 

(0.036 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. PM emissions must not exceed 6.6 mg/

dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or 

ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr). 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.1 E–05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (4.1 E–05 pound 

per ton (lb/ton)) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.7 

micrograms per dry standard cubic meter 

(μg/dscm) at 17% O2; or 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.5 E–04 

kg/hr (5.5 E–04 lb/hr). 

3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity 

<10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg 

(0.37 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. PM emissions must not exceed 4.8 mg/

dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or 

ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr). 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg 

(3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 91 μg/

dscm at 17% O2; or 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.5 E–04 

kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65531 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS—Continued 

For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . Or you must comply with the following . . . 

4. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg 

(0.018 lb/ton) of fired product..

i. PM emissions must not exceed 3.2 mg/

dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or 

ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr) of 

fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E–05 kg/Mg 

(2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.2 μg/

dscm at 17% O2. 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.6 E–04 

kg/hr (3.4 E–04 lb/hr). 

5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg 

(0.030 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. PM emissions must not exceed 4.7 mg/

dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or 

ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr) of fired 

product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg 

(3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product.

i. Hg emissions must not exceed 91 μg/

dscm at 17% O2. 

ii. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.5 E–04 

kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 

As stated in § 63.8405, you must meet 

each operating limit in the following 

table that applies to you: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; or, if you are monitoring the bypass stack damper position, initiate corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete corrective action in accordance with your 

OM&M plan; and 

b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of 

the DLA), and DLA at all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product 

basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was 

demonstrated; and 

c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; maintain records of the source and grade of limestone; and 

d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack. 

2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF 

or DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating 

time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and 

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test for continuous injection systems in which compliance 

was demonstrated. 

3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS a. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber 

liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; 

and 

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. 

4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI 

system.

Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average carbon flow 

rate established during the Hg performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on control.a. Maintain no VE from the stack. 

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8445(g)(1). 

As stated in § 63.8405, you must meet 

each work practice standard in the 

following table that applies to you: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65532 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

For each . . . You must . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

1. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln .. a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. i. Develop and use a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each periodic kiln. 

You must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each 

step on a log sheet; and 

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum 

load (in tons) of product that can be fired in 

the kiln during a single firing cycle; and 

iii. For each firing load, document the total 

tonnage of product placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum 

load identified in item 1b; and 

iv. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, 

specify the frequency of inspection and 

maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; 

and 

v. Develop and maintain records for each 

periodic kiln, as specified in § 63.8490. 

2. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln ..... a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions .................. i. Maintain and inspect the burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); 

and 

ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize 

combustion. 

3. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln 

during periods of startup.

a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. i. Establish the startup push rate for each kiln, 

the minimum APCD inlet temperature for 

each APCD, and temperature profile for 

each kiln without an APCD and include 

them in your first compliance report, as 

specified in § 63.8485(c)(8); and 

ii. After initial charging of the kiln with loaded 

kiln cars, remain at or below the startup 

push rate for the kiln until the kiln exhaust 

reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln with an APCD or until the kiln 

temperature profile is attained for a kiln with 

no APCD; and 

iii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin venting the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by 

the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature. 

4. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln 

during periods of shutdown.

a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. i. Do not push loaded kiln cars into the kiln 

once the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

below the minimum APCD inlet temperature 

if the kiln is controlled by an APCD or when 

the kiln temperature profile is no longer 

maintained for an uncontrolled kiln; and 

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, continue to vent 

the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

until the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

below the minimum inlet temperature for 

the APCD. 

5. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln 

during periods of routine control device maintenance.

a. Minimize HAP emissions. ............................ i. Develop and use a temperature profile for 

each kiln; and 

ii. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, 

specify the frequency of inspection and 

maintenance of temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air-to-fuel 

ratios; and 

iii. Develop and maintain records for each 

kiln, as specified in § 63.8490(a)(3). 

As stated in § 63.8445, you must 

conduct each performance test in the 

following table that applies to you: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65533 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

1. Tunnel kiln ....................... a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points.Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1.

Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 

APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere 

for all affected sources. 

b. Determine velocities and 

volumetric flow rate.

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–1.

You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. 

c. Conduct gas molecular 

weight analysis.

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2.

You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to 

using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative 

to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. 

d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas.Method 4 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3.

e. Measure HF, HCl and 

Cl2 emissions.

i. Method 26A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8; 

or.

You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8, when no acid PM (e.g., 

HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by 

sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM 

D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative 

to Methods 26 and 26A. 

ii. Method 320 of appendix 

A of this part.

When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of 

section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1–A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte. 

f. Measure PM emissions 

or non-Hg HAP metals.

i. For PM only: Method 5 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3; or.

ii. For PM or non-Hg HAP 

metals: Method 29 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8.

g. Measure Hg emissions Method 29 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8.

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). 

2. Tunnel kiln with no addon control.Establish the operating 

limit(s) for kiln process 

rate if the total facility 

maximum potential HClequivalent emissions are 

greater than the HClequivalent limit in Table 

1 to this subpart.

HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart 

and emissions and production data from the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test.

Using the procedures in § 63.8445(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate(s) for your kiln(s) 

that would ensure total facility maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the 

HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart. The 

maximum process rate(s) would become your sitespecific process rate operating limit(s). 

3. Tunnel kiln that is complying with PM and/or Hg 

production-based emission limits.

Determine the production 

rate during each PM/Hg 

test run in order to determine compliance with 

PM and/or Hg production-based emission limits.

Production data collected 

during the PM/Hg performance tests (e.g., no. 

of pushes per hour, no. 

of bricks per kiln car, 

weight of a typical fired 

brick).

You must measure and record the production rate, on 

a fired-product basis, of the affected source for each 

of the three test runs. 

4. Tunnel kiln equipped with 

a DLA.

a. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

pressure drop across the 

DLA.

Data from the pressure 

drop measurement device during the HF/HCl/

Cl2 performance test.

You must continuously measure the pressure drop 

across the DLA, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, 

and determine and record the 3-hour block average 

of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the 

three test runs. The average of the three test runs 

establishes your minimum site-specific pressure 

drop operating limit. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65534 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for the limestone 

feeder setting.

Data from the limestone 

feeder during the HF/

HCl/Cl2 performance test.

You must ensure that you maintain an adequate 

amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at 

all times during the performance test. You must establish your limestone feeder setting, on a per ton of 

fired product basis, one week prior to the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the 

one-week period that precedes the performance test 

and during the performance test. 

c. Document the source 

and grade of limestone 

used.

Records of limestone purchase.

5. Tunnel kiln equipped with 

a DIFF or DLS/FF.

Establish the operating 

limit for the lime feeder 

setting.

Data from the lime feeder 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the 

APCD is free-flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton 

of fired product basis, for the three test runs. If the 

feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, 

determine and record the average feed rate from 

the three test runs. The average of the three test 

runs establishes your minimum site-specific feed 

rate operating limit. 

6. Tunnel kiln equipped with 

a WS.

a. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid pH.

Data from the pH measurement device during 

the performance HF/HCl/

Cl2 performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and 

record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pH 

measurements for the three test runs. The average 

of the three test runs establishes your minimum 

site-specific liquid pH operating limit. 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate.

Data from the flow rate 

measurement device 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2

and PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals performance 

tests.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

flow rate, determine and record the block average 

flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test 

runs. The average of the three test runs establishes 

your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating 

level. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured during the HF/HCl/Cl2 and 

PM/non-Hg HAP metals tests, the highest of the average values become your site-specific operating 

limit. 

7. Tunnel kiln equipped with 

an ACI system.

Establish the operating 

limit for the average carbon flow rate.

Data from the carbon flow 

rate measurement conducted during the Hg 

performance test.

You must measure the carbon flow rate during each 

test run, determine and record the block average 

carbon flow rate values for the three test runs, and 

determine and record the 3-hour block average of 

the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the 

three test runs. The average of the three test runs 

establishes your minimum site-specific activated 

carbon flow rate operating limit. 

As stated in § 63.8455, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with 

each emission limitation and work 

practice standard that applies to you 

according to the following table: 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if . . . 

1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at the facility, including all process streams.a. HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl equivalent.i. You measure HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions 

for each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6735–01 (Reapproved 

2009) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14); or Method 320 of appendix A of 

this part or its alternative, ASTM D6348–03 

(Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14); and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65535 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if . . . 

ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions 

for each kiln using Equation 2 to this subpart; and 

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for all 

kilns at the facility using Equation 3 to this 

subpart; and 

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does not 

exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr). 

2. Existing large tunnel kiln (design capacity 

≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.018 kg/

Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/

dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 

5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

8, over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg 

(0.036 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.6 mg/

dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.018 kg/Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at 

17% O2. 

b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, do not exceed 0.0026 kg/

hr (0.0057 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 

lb/hr). 

c. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.1 E–05 

kg/Mg (4.1 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

7.7 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 2.5 E–04 kg/hr 

(5.5 E–04 lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 

29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its 

alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 2.1 E–05 kg/

Mg (4.1 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 7.7 

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 2.5 E–04 kg/hr (5.5 

E–04 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 2.1 E–05 kg/Mg (4.1 E–05 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 7.7 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 

2.5 E–04 kg/hr (5.5 E–04 lb/hr). 

3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design capacity 

<10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg 

(0.37 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/

dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 

5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

8, over the period of the initial performance 

test, according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg 

(0.37 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/

dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% 

O2. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if . . . 

b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, do not exceed 0.047 kg/

hr (0.11 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/

hr). 

c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 

kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr 

(0.0019 lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 

29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its 

alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/

Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr 

(0.0019 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 

8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 

4. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln (design capacity ≥10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.0089 kg/

Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/

dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 

5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, over 

the period of the initial performance test, 

according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.0089 kg/

Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of fired product or 3.2 mg/

dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 3.2 mg/dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at 

17% O2. 

b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, do not exceed 0.0026 kg/

hr (0.0057 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr (0.0057 

lb/hr). 

c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4 E–05 

kg/Mg (2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

6.2 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 1.6 E–04 kg/hr 

(3.4 E–04 lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 

29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its 

alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.4 E–05 kg/

Mg (2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product or 6.2 

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 1.6 E–04 kg/hr (3.4 

E–04 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.4 E–05 kg/Mg (2.8 E–05 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 6.2 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 

1.6 E–04 kg/hr (3.4 E–04 lb/hr). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65537 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if . . . 

5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln (design capacity <10 tph of fired product), including all process streams.a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.015 kg/

Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.7 mg/

dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; or.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 

5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3, over 

the period of the initial performance test, 

according to the calculations in 

§ 63.8445(f)(1), do not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg 

(0.030 lb/ton) of fired product or 4.7 mg/

dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.015 kg/Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at 

17% O2. 

b. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions must not 

exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr).

i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8, over the period of the initial 

performance test, do not exceed 0.047 kg/

hr (0.11 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which non-Hg HAP metals emissions did not exceed 0.047 kg/hr (0.11 lb/

hr). 

c. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7 E–04 

kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr 

(0.0019 lb/hr).

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 

29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its 

alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14), over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/

Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product or 91 

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.5 E–04 kg/hr 

(0.0019 lb/hr); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits listed in Table 2 to 

this subpart over the 3-hour performance 

test during which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.7 E–04 kg/Mg (3.3 E–04 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 91 μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 

8.5 E–04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr). 

6. Existing, new or reconstructed periodic kiln .. a. Minimize HAP emissions ............................. i. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln. You 

must either program the time and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step 

on a log sheet; and 

ii. Label each periodic kiln with the maximum 

load (in tons) of product that can be fired in 

the kiln during a single firing cycle; and 

iii. Develop maintenance procedures for each 

kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of 

temperature monitoring devices, controls 

that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls 

that regulate firing cycles. 

7. Existing, new or reconstructed tunnel kiln ..... a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions .................. i. Conduct initial inspection of the burners and 

associated combustion controls (as applicable); and 

ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize 

combustion. 

As stated in § 63.8470, you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with each emission limitation and work 

practice standard that applies to you 

according to the following table: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65538 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for tunnel kilns 

equipped with a DLA.

i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data according to § 63.8450(a); 

reducing the DLA pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average pressure drop 

across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test in which compliance was demonstrated; or continuously monitoring the bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 

minutes during normal kiln operation, and initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln 

exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and completing corrective action in 

accordance with your OM&M plan; and 

ii. Verifying that the limestone hopper and storage bin (located at the 

top of the DLA) contain adequate limestone by performing a daily 

visual check, which could include one of the following: (1) Conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating a visual access 

point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) installing a 

camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a video 

monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional limestone; and 

iii. Recording the limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired 

product basis) to verify that the feeder setting is being maintained 

at or above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and 

iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the same source as was 

used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; maintaining records 

of the source and type of limestone; and 

v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack at the frequency 

specified in § 63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; maintaining no VE from the DLA stack. 

2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF 

or DLS/FF.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for tunnel kilns 

equipped with DIFF or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection system, as prescribed in 

63.8450(e), initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak 

detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent 

of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; in 

calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm 

time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is 

counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual 

amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/

FF stack; and 

ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime 

flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or 

other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is 

found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the 

feeder setting once during each shift of operation to verify that the 

feeder setting is being maintained at or above the level established 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was 

demonstrated. 

3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for tunnel kilns 

equipped with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH 

for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which 

compliance was demonstrated; and 

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to 

§ 63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance tests in 

which compliance was demonstrated. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65539 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI 

system.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for tunnel kilns equipped 

with ACI system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to § 63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to 

§ 63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3- 

hour block period at or above the average carbon flow rate established during the Hg performance test in which compliance was 

demonstrated. 

5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on control.a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for tunnel kilns with 

no add-on control.

i. Performing VE observations of the stack at the frequency specified 

in § 63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; 

and maintaining no VE from the stack. 

ii. If your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the health-based standard in Table 1 to 

this subpart, collecting the kiln process rate data according to 

§ 63.8450(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to § 63.8450(a); maintaining the average kiln 

process rate for each 3-hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8445(g)(1). 

6. Periodic kiln ................................. a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln; and 

ii. For each firing load, documenting the total tonnage of product 

placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum 

load identified in Item 1.a.ii of Table 3 to this subpart; and 

iii. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, 

and controls that regulate firing cycles; and 

iv. Developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, as 

specified in § 63.8490. 

7. Tunnel kiln ................................... a. Minimize dioxin/furan emissions i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated combustion 

controls (as applicable) and tuning the specific burner type to optimize combustion no later than 36 calendar months after the previous tune-up; and 

ii. Maintaining records of burner tune-ups used to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice standard; and 

iii. Submitting a report of most recent tune-up conducted with compliance report. 

As stated in § 63.8395, you must meet 

each compliance date in the following 

table that applies to you: 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—COMPLIANCE DATES

If you have a(n) . . . Then you must . . . No later than . . . 

1. New or reconstructed affected source and 

the initial startup of your affected source is 

after December 18, 2014, but before December 28, 2015.

Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 

1, 2, and 3 to this subpart.

December 28, 2015. 

2. New or reconstructed affected source and 

the initial startup of your affected source is 

after December 28, 2015.

Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 

1, 2, and 3 to this subpart.

Initial startup of your affected source. 

3. Existing affected source ................................. Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 

1, 2, and 3 to this subpart.

December 26, 2018. 

4. Existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a 

new affected source or by reconstructing.

Be in compliance with this subpart .................. Initial startup of your affected source as a 

major source. 

5. New area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit 

such that it becomes a major source of HAP.

Be in compliance with this subpart .................. Initial startup of your affected source as a 

major source. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65540 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

As stated in § 63.8480, you must 

submit each notification that applies to 

you according to the following table: 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS

If you . . . You must . . . No later than . . . As specified in . . . 

1. Start up your affected source before December 28, 2015.Submit an Initial Notification ........... June 22, 2016 ................................. § 63.9(b)(2). 

2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or 

after December 28, 2015.

Submit an Initial Notification ........... 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.§ 63.9(b)(2). 

3. Are required to conduct a performance test.Submit a notification of intent to 

conduct a performance test.

60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to 

begin.

§ 63.7(b)(1). 

4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes 

a performance test according to 

the requirements in Table 4 to 

this subpart.

Submit a Notification of Compliance 

Status, including the performance 

test results.

60 calendar days following the 

completion of the performance 

test, by the close of business.

§ 63.9(h) and § 63.10(d)(2). 

5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration required in 

Table 5 to this subpart that does 

not include a performance test 

(i.e., compliance demonstrations 

for the work practice standards).

Submit a Notification of Compliance 

Status.

30 calendar days following the 

completion of the compliance 

demonstrations, by the close of 

business.

§ 63.9(h). 

6. Request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard according to 

§ 63.8420(d).

Submit your request ....................... 120 calendar days before the compliance date specified in 

§ 63.8395.

As stated in § 63.8485, you must 

submit each report that applies to you 

according to the following table: 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

1. A compliance report. ................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission 

limits, operating limits) that apply to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-control as specified in your OM&M plan, a statement that there 

were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control during 

the reporting period.

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8485(b). 

b. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain 

the information in § 63.8485(c)(9). If there were periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control, as specified in your OM&M 

plan, the report must contain the information in § 63.8485(d).

Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.8485(b). 

As stated in § 63.8505, you must 

comply with the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you 

according to the following table: 

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ? 

§ 63.1 .................................. Applicability ........................ Initial applicability determination; applicability after 

standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications.

Yes. 

§ 63.2 .................................. Definitions .......................... Definitions for part 63 standards ................................... Yes. 

§ 63.3 .................................. Units and Abbreviations .... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards .............. Yes. 

§ 63.4 .................................. Prohibited Activities ........... Compliance date; circumvention; severability ............... Yes. 

§ 63.5 .................................. Construction/Reconstruction.Applicability; applications; approvals ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.6(a) .............................. Applicability ........................ General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become 

major.

Yes. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65541 

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ? 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction 

or reconstruction commences for section 112(f).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) ......................... Notification ......................... Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal.Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) ......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(b)(7) ......................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed Area 

Sources That Become 

Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with 

major source standards immediately upon becoming 

major, regardless of whether required to comply 

when they were area sources.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................... Compliance Dates for Existing Sources.Comply according to date in subpart, which must be 

no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 

112(f) standards, comply within 90 calendar days of 

effective date unless compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(c)(5) .......................... Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with 

major source standards by date indicated in subpart 

or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(d) .............................. [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...................... Operation & Maintenance General Duty to minimize emissions ............................ No. See § 63.8420(b) for 

general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..................... Operation & Maintenance Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP ................. No. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ..................... Operation & Maintenance Operation and maintenance requirements enforceable 

independent of emissions limitations.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) ......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ......................... Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Plan (SSMP).

Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP.

No. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) .......................... Compliance Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with emission standards at all times 

except during SSM.

No. 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................... Methods for Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on performance test, operation and 

maintenance plans, records, inspection.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(g) .............................. Alternative Standard .......... Procedures for getting an alternative standard ............. Yes. 

§ 63.6(h) .............................. Opacity/VE Standards ....... Requirements for opacity and VE standards ................ No, not applicable. 

§ 63.6(i) ............................... Compliance Extension ....... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension.Yes. 

§ 63.6(j) ............................... Presidential Compliance 

Exemption.

President may exempt source category ....................... Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ................... Performance Test Dates ... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and 

other compliance demonstrations for emission limits 

and work practice standards; must conduct 180 calendar days after first subject to rule.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) ......................... Section 114 Authority ........ Administrator may require a performance test under 

CAA section 114 at any time.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(4) ......................... Notification of Delay in 

Performance Testing 

Due To Force Majeure.

Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure.Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(1) ......................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Must notify Administrator 60 calendar days before the 

test.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(2) ......................... Notification of Rescheduling.Must notify Administrator 5 calendar days before 

scheduled date of rescheduled date.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(c) .............................. Quality Assurance(QA)/

Test Plan.

Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA 

procedures for testing.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(d) .............................. Testing Facilities ................ Requirements for testing facilities ................................. Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ......................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a 

violation to exceed standard during SSM.

No, § 63.8445 specifies requirements. 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(3) ................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test 

methods unless Administrator approves alternative; 

must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour 

each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of 

three runs; conditions when data from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(4) ......................... Testing under Section 114 Administrator’s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act.Yes. 

§ 63.7(f) ............................... Alternative Test Method .... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval 

to use an alternative test method.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(g) .............................. Performance Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in performance test report; 

must submit performance test data 60 calendar 

days after end of test with the notification of compliance status.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(h) .............................. Waiver of Tests ................. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance 

test.

Yes. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65542 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ? 

§ 63.8(a)(1) ......................... Applicability of Monitoring 

Requirements.

Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart ........ Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) ......................... Performance Specifications Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) ......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) ......................... Monitoring with Flares ....... Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ...................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) ......................... Monitoring .......................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless 

Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems.Specific requirements for installing and reporting on 

monitoring systems.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1) .......................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance.Maintenance consistent with good air pollution control 

practices.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...................... Routine and Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP.No. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ...................... SSM not in SSMP ............. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not 

described in SSMP.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ..................... Compliance with Operation 

and Maintenance Requirements.

How Administrator determines if source complying 

with operation and maintenance requirements.

No. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................... Monitoring System Installation.Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements.Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) .......................... CMS Requirements ........... Requirements for CMS .................................................. No, § 63.8450 specifies requirements. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) .......................... Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) 

Minimum Procedures.

COMS minimum procedures ......................................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) .......................... CMS Requirements ........... Zero and high level calibration check requirements ..... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ................... CMS Requirements ........... Out-of-control periods .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2) ............. CMS Quality Control ......... Requirements for CMS quality control .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ......................... CMS Quality Control ......... Written procedures for CMS ......................................... No, § 63.8425(b)(9) specifies requirements 

§ 63.8(e) .............................. CMS Performance Evaluation.Requirements for CMS performance evaluation ........... Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .................... Alternative Monitoring 

Method.

Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative 

monitoring.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) .......................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test.Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative 

relative accuracy test for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).

No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(g) .............................. Data Reduction .................. COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements ........... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(a) .............................. Notification Requirements Applicability; State delegation ....................................... Yes. 

§ 63.9(b) .............................. Initial Notifications ............. Requirements for initial notifications.

§ 63.9(c) .............................. Request for Compliance 

Extension.

Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed 

BACT/LAER.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(d) .............................. Notification of Special 

Compliance Requirements for New Source.

For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years 

after effective date.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(e) .............................. Notification of Performance 

Test.

Notify Administrator 60 calendar days prior .................. Yes. 

§ 63.9(f) ............................... Notification of VE/Opacity 

Test.

Notify Administrator 30 calendar days prior .................. No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(g)(1) ......................... Additional Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of performance evaluation .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.9(g)(2)–(3) ................... Additional Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded.No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(h) .............................. Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Contents; submittal requirements ................................. Yes. 

§ 63.9(i) ............................... Adjustment of Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for Administrator to approve change in 

when notifications must be submitted.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(j) ............................... Change in Previous Information.Must submit within 15 calendar days after the change Yes. 

§ 63.10(a) ............................ Recordkeeping/Reporting .. Applicability; general information .................................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ....................... General Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) .................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups 

and shutdowns.

No. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65543 

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART JJJJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJJJ—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart JJJJJ? 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard .............. No. See § 63.8490(c)(2) for 

recordkeeping of (1) 

date, time and duration; 

(2) listing of affected 

source or equipment, and 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the 

standard; and (3) actions 

to minimize emissions 

and correct the failure. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ................... Records Related to SSM .. Maintenance records.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ............ Records Related to SSM .. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ........ No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xii) and 

(xiv).

CMS Records .................... Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or 

out-of-control.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................. Records ............................. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy 

test.

§ 63.10(b)(3) ....................... Records ............................. Applicability Determinations .......................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(15) ............... Records ............................. Additional records for CMS ........................................... No, §§ 63.8425 and 

63.8490 specify requirements 

§ 63.10(d)(1) and (2) ........... General Reporting Requirements.Requirements for reporting; performance test results 

reporting.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ....................... Reporting Opacity or VE 

Observations.

Requirements for reporting opacity and VE .................. No, not applicable. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ....................... Progress Reports .............. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under 

compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ....................... SSM Reports ..................... Contents and submission. ............................................. No. See § 63.8485(c)(9) for 

malfunction reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(3) ................. Additional CMS Reports .... Requirements for CMS reporting .................................. No, §§ 63.8425 and 

63.8485 specify requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ....................... Reporting COMS data ....... Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data.No, not applicable. 

§ 63.10(f) ............................. Waiver for Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Procedures for Administrator to waive .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.11 ................................ Flares ................................. Requirement for flares ................................................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.12 ................................ Delegation ......................... State authority to enforce standards.

§ 63.13 ................................ Addresses .......................... Addresses for reports, notifications, requests ............... Yes. 

§ 63.14 ................................ Incorporation by Reference Materials incorporated by reference ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.15 ................................ Availability of Information .. Information availability; confidential information ........... Yes. 

§ 63.16 ................................ Performance Track Provisions.Requirements for Performance Track member facilities Yes. 

■ 4. Part 63 is amended by revising 

subpart KKKKK to read as follows: 

Subpart KKKKK—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

Sec. 

What This Subpart Covers 

63.8530 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.8540 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

63.8545 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice 

Standards 

63.8555 What emission limitations and 

work practice standards must I meet? 

63.8560 What are my options for meeting 

the emission limitations and work 

practice standards? 

General Compliance Requirements 

63.8570 What are my general requirements 

for complying with this subpart? 

63.8575 What do I need to know about 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plans? 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

63.8585 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests? 

63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent 

performance tests? 

63.8595 How do I conduct performance 

tests and establish operating limits? 

63.8600 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data 

to demonstrate continuous compliance? 

63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

63.8630 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

63.8635 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

63.8640 What records must I keep? 

63.8645 In what form and for how long 

must I keep my records? 

Other Requirements and Information 

63.8655 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

63.8660 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

63.8665 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Emission Limits 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65544 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Operating Limits 

Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Work 

Practice Standards 

Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Requirements for Performance Tests 

Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63—Initial 

Compliance with Emission Limitations and 

Work Practice Standards 

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Continuous Compliance with Emission 

Limitations and Work Practice Standards 

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Compliance Dates 

Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Requirements for Notifications 

Table 10 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Requirements for Reports 

Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions to 

Subpart KKKKK 

Subpart KKKKK—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

What This Subpart Covers 

§ 63.8530 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes national 

emission limitations and work practice 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) emitted from clay ceramics 

manufacturing facilities. This subpart 

also establishes requirements to 

demonstrate initial and continuous 

compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards. 

§ 63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart? 

You are subject to this subpart if you 

own or operate a clay ceramics 

manufacturing facility that is, is located 

at, or is part of a major source of HAP 

emissions according to the criteria in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) A clay ceramics manufacturing 

facility is a plant site that manufactures 

pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, 

other pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., 

sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics 

manufacturing facilities typically 

process clay, shale, and various 

additives; form the processed materials 

into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry 

and fire the ceramic products. Glazes 

are applied to many tile and 

sanitaryware products. A plant site that 

manufactures refractory products, as 

defined in § 63.9824, or brick and 

structural clay products (BSCP), as 

defined in § 63.8515, is not a clay 

ceramics manufacturing facility. 

(b) A major source of HAP emissions 

is any stationary source or group of 

stationary sources within a contiguous 

area under common control that emits 

or has the potential to emit any single 

HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 

tons) or more per year or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 

megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. 

§ 63.8540 What parts of my plant does this 

subpart cover? 

(a) This subpart applies to each 

existing, new, or reconstructed affected 

source at a clay ceramics manufacturing 

facility. 

(b) Each existing, new, or 

reconstructed ceramic tile roller kiln, 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln, sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln, ceramic tile glaze line using 

glaze spraying, sanitaryware glaze spray 

booth, ceramic tile spray dryer, and 

floor tile press dryer is an affected 

source. 

(c) Process units not subject to the 

requirements of this subpart are listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this 

section. 

(1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that 

are used exclusively for refiring. 

(2) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that 

are used exclusively for setting glazes 

on previously fired products. 

(3) Glaze spray operations that are 

used exclusively with those kilns listed 

in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(4) Process units listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section that are 

permitted to, but do not, process firstfire ware, until such time as they begin 

to process first-fire ware. 

(5) Glaze spray operations that on 

average use wet glazes containing less 

than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP 

(dry weight basis) per spray booth over 

an entire calendar year. 

(6) Raw material processing and 

handling. 

(7) Wall tile press dryers. 

(8) Sanitaryware ware dryers. 

(9) Sources covered by subparts JJJJJ 

and SSSSS of this part. 

(d) A source is a new affected source 

if construction of the affected source 

began after December 18, 2014, and you 

met the applicability criteria at the time 

you began construction. 

(e) An affected source is reconstructed 

if you meet the criteria as defined in 

§ 63.2. 

(f) An affected source is existing if it 

is not new or reconstructed. 

§ 63.8545 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

(a) You must comply with this 

subpart no later than the compliance 

dates in Table 8 to this subpart. 

(b) You must meet the notification 

requirements in § 63.8630 according to 

the schedule in § 63.8630 and in subpart 

A of this part. Some of the notifications 

must be submitted before you are 

required to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart. 

Emission Limitations and Work 

Practice Standards 

§ 63.8555 What emission limitations and 

work practice standards must I meet? 

(a) You must meet each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) You must meet each operating 

limit in Table 2 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

(c) You must meet each work practice 

standard in Table 3 to this subpart that 

applies to you. 

§ 63.8560 What are my options for meeting 

the emission limitations and work practice 

standards? 

(a) To meet the emission limitations 

in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you 

must use one or more of the options 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) Emissions control system. Use an 

emissions capture and collection system 

and an air pollution control device 

(APCD) and demonstrate that the 

resulting emissions meet the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and 

that the capture and collection system 

and APCD meet the applicable operating 

limits in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP 

raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and 

demonstrate that the resulting emissions 

or emissions reductions meet the 

emission limits in Table 1 to this 

subpart. 

(b) To meet the work practice 

standards for affected sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns, you must comply with the 

requirements listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

(c) To meet the work practice 

standards for affected sources during 

periods of startup and shutdown, you 

must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart. 

General Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.8570 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

(a) You must be in compliance with 

the emission limitations (including 

operating limits) in this subpart at all 

times, except during periods that you 

are approved for and in compliance 

with the alternative standard for routine 

control device maintenance as specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section, and 

except during periods of start-up and 

shutdown, at which time you must 

comply with the applicable work 

practice standard specified in Table 3 to 

this subpart. 

(b) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65545 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

you to make any further efforts to 

reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been 

achieved. Determination of whether a 

source is operating in compliance with 

operation and maintenance 

requirements 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. During the period between 

the compliance date specified for your 

affected source in § 63.8545 and the date 

upon which continuous monitoring 

systems (CMS) (e.g., continuous 

parameter monitoring systems) have 

been installed and verified and any 

applicable operating limits have been 

set, you must maintain a log detailing 

the operation and maintenance of the 

process and emissions control 

equipment. 

(c) For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare and implement a written 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan according to the 

requirements in § 63.8575. 

(d) If you own or operate an affected 

source that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this 

subpart and must perform routine 

maintenance on the control device for 

that affected source, you may bypass the 

source control device and continue 

operating the affected source subject to 

the alternative standard established in 

this paragraph upon approval by the 

Administrator and provided you satisfy 

the conditions listed in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) You must request to use the 

routine control device maintenance 

alternative standard from the 

Administrator no later than 120 

calendar days before the compliance 

date specified in § 63.8545. Your request 

must justify the need for the routine 

maintenance on the control device and 

the time required to accomplish the 

maintenance activities, describe the 

maintenance activities and the 

frequency of the maintenance activities, 

explain why the maintenance cannot be 

accomplished during source shutdowns, 

provide information stating whether the 

continued operation of the affected 

source will result in fewer emissions 

than shutting the source down while the 

maintenance is performed, describe how 

you plan to comply with paragraph (b) 

of this section during the maintenance, 

and provide any other documentation 

required by the Administrator. 

(2) The routine control device 

maintenance must not exceed 4 percent 

of the annual operating uptime for each 

affected source. 

(3) The request for the routine control 

device maintenance alternative 

standard, if approved by the 

Administrator, must be incorporated by 

reference in and attached to the affected 

source’s title V permit. 

(4) You must minimize HAP 

emissions during the period when the 

affected source is operating and the 

control device is offline by complying 

with the applicable standard in Table 3 

to this subpart. 

(5) You must minimize the time 

period during which the affected source 

is operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(e) If you own or operate an affected 

kiln that is subject to the work practice 

standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart, you must be in compliance 

with that work practice standard at all 

times, except during periods of natural 

gas curtailment or other periods when 

natural gas is not available. 

(f) You must be in compliance with 

the provisions of subpart A of this part, 

except as noted in Table 9 to this 

subpart. 

§ 63.8575 What do I need to know about 

operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

plans? 

(a) For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

prepare, implement, and revise as 

necessary an OM&M plan that includes 

the information in paragraph (b) of this 

section. Your OM&M plan must be 

available for inspection by the delegated 

authority upon request. 

(b) Your OM&M plan must include, as 

a minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this 

section. 

(1) Each process and APCD to be 

monitored, the type of monitoring 

device that will be used, and the 

operating parameters that will be 

monitored. 

(2) A monitoring schedule that 

specifies the frequency that the 

parameter values will be determined 

and recorded. 

(3) The limits for each parameter that 

represent continuous compliance with 

the emission limitations in § 63.8555. 

The limits must be based on values of 

the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests. 

(4) Procedures for the proper 

operation and routine and long-term 

maintenance of each APCD, including a 

maintenance and inspection schedule 

that is consistent with the 

manufacturer’s recommendations. 

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS 

sampling probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last APCD). 

(6) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction system. 

(7) Continuous monitoring system 

performance evaluation procedures and 

acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(8) Procedures for the proper 

operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with 

the requirements in §§ 63.8600 and 

63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8). 

(9) Continuous monitoring system 

data quality assurance procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or 

operator shall keep these written 

procedures on record for the life of the 

affected source or until the affected 

source is no longer subject to the 

provisions of this part, to be made 

available for inspection, upon request, 

by the Administrator. If the performance 

evaluation plan in § 63.8(d)(2) is 

revised, the owner or operator shall 

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions 

of the performance evaluation plan on 

record to be made available for 

inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator, for a period of 5 years 

after each revision to the plan. The 

program of corrective action should be 

included in the plan required under 

§ 63.8(d)(2). 

(10) Continuous monitoring system 

recordkeeping and reporting procedures 

consistent with the requirements in 

§§ 63.8635 and 63.8640. 

(11) Procedures for responding to 

operating parameter deviations, 

including the procedures in paragraphs 

(b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Procedures for determining the 

cause of the operating parameter 

deviation. 

(ii) Actions necessary for correcting 

the deviation and returning the 

operating parameters to the allowable 

limits. 

(iii) Procedures for recording the 

times that the deviation began and 

ended, and corrective actions were 

initiated and completed. 

(12) Procedures for keeping records to 

document compliance. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65546 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(13) If you operate an affected source 

and you plan to take the source control 

device out of service for routine 

maintenance, as specified in 

§ 63.8570(d), the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(13)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP 

emissions from the affected source 

during periods of routine maintenance 

of the source control device when the 

affected source is operating and the 

control device is offline. 

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the 

duration of any period of routine 

maintenance on the source control 

device when the affected source is 

operating and the control device is 

offline. 

(c) Changes to the operating limits in 

your OM&M plan require a new 

performance test. If you are revising an 

operating limit parameter value, you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Submit a notification of 

performance test to the Administrator as 

specified in § 63.7(b). 

(2) After completing the performance 

test to demonstrate that compliance 

with the emission limits can be 

achieved at the revised operating limit 

parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised 

operating limits as part of the 

Notification of Compliance Status 

required under § 63.9(h). 

(d) If you are revising the inspection 

and maintenance procedures in your 

OM&M plan, you do not need to 

conduct a new performance test. 

Testing and Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 63.8585 By what date must I conduct 

performance tests? 

For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

conduct performance tests within 180 

calendar days after the compliance date 

that is specified for your source in 

§ 63.8545 and according to the 

provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). 

§ 63.8590 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests? 

(a) For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

conduct a performance test before 

renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating 

permit or at least every 5 years 

following the initial performance test. 

(b) You must conduct a performance 

test when you want to change the 

parameter value for any operating limit 

specified in your OM&M plan. 

§ 63.8595 How do I conduct performance 

tests and establish operating limits? 

(a) You must conduct each 

performance test in Table 4 to this 

subpart that applies to you. 

(b) Before conducting the performance 

test, you must install and calibrate all 

monitoring equipment. 

(c) Each performance test must be 

conducted according to the 

requirements in § 63.7 and under the 

specific conditions in Table 4 to this 

subpart. Stacks to be tested at 

sanitaryware manufacturing facilities 

shall be limited to products of 

combustion (POC) stacks and those 

cooling stacks with an oxygen content at 

or below 20.5 percent. 

(d) Performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to you based on 

representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and 

shutdown. You may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. You must record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Upon request, you shall make available 

to the Administrator such records as 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

(e) You must conduct at least three 

separate test runs for each performance 

test required in this section, as specified 

in § 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at 

least 1 hour. 

(f) You must use the data gathered 

during the performance test and the 

equations in paragraphs (f)(1) through 

(4) of this section to determine 

compliance with the emission 

limitations. 

(1) To determine compliance with the 

production-based particulate matter 

(PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits 

for ceramic tile roller kilns and 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns in Table 1 to 

this subpart, you must calculate your 

mass emissions per unit of production 

for each test run using Equation 1: 

Where: 

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms 

(pounds) of pollutant per megagram (ton) 

of throughput 

ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or 

Hg) during each performance test run, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

P = production rate during each performance 

test run, megagrams (tons) of throughput 

per hour. 

(2) To determine compliance with the 

PM emission limits for ceramic tile 

glaze lines with glaze spraying and 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must calculate 

your mass emissions per unit of first-fire 

glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) for each 

test run using Equation 2: 

Where: 

MG = mass per unit of glaze application, 

kilograms (pounds) of PM per megagram 

(ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry 

weight basis) 

ER = mass emission rate of PM during each 

performance test run, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

G = glaze application rate during each 

performance test run, megagrams (tons) 

of first-fire glaze sprayed per hour (dry 

weight basis). 

(3) To determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limits for tunnel 

and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray 

dryers, and floor tile press dryers in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

calculate the sum of the 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8– 

TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQs) for each 

test run using Equation 3: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER26OC15.021</GPH> ER26OC15.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65547 

Where: 

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8–TCDD TEQs, 

nanograms per kilogram of throughput 

processed. 

Mi = mass of dioxin or furan congener i 

during performance test run, nanograms 

TEFi = 2,3,7,8–TCDD toxic equivalency factor 

(TEF) for congener i, as provided in 

Table 5 to this subpart 

n = number of congeners included in TEQ 

Tr = time of performance test run, hours 

P = production rate during performance test 

run, kilograms of throughput processed 

per hour. 

(4) To determine compliance with the 

health-based standard for acid gas HAP 

for clay ceramics manufacturing 

facilities in Table 1 to this subpart, you 

must: 

(i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for HF and HCl for each 

tunnel or roller kiln at your facility 

using Equation 4: 

Where: 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or 

roller kilns at your facility, sum the HClequivalent values for all tunnel or roller 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5: 

Where: 

Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of 

all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, 

kilograms (pounds) per hour 

n = number of tunnel kilns at facility 

(iii) Compare this value to the healthbased standard in Table 1 to this 

subpart. 

(g) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart that applies to you as 

specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section and in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD 

installed on your tunnel or roller kiln, 

you must calculate the maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent emissions for 

HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller 

kiln at your facility using Equation 6: 

Where: 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams 

(tons) of throughput per hour 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of throughput 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of throughput 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

(ii) If you have multiple tunnel or 

roller kilns at your facility, sum the 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the 

facility using Equation 7: 

Where: 

Emax total = maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for total of all kilns 

at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour 

Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

emissions for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) 

per hour 

n = number of kilns at facility 

(iii) If you have a single tunnel or 

roller kiln at your facility and the total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions (Emax total) are 

greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER26OC15.023</GPH> ER26OC15.024</GPH> ER26OC15.025</GPH> ER26OC15.026</GPH> ER26OC15.027</GPH>
65548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

determine the maximum process rate for 

the kiln using Equation 8 that would 

ensure the total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent emissions 

remain at or below the HCl-equivalent 

limit. The maximum process rate would 

become your operating limit for process 

rate and must be included in your 

OM&M plan. 

Where: 

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, 

megagrams (tons) per hour 

HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart, 62 kilograms (140 pounds) 

per hour 

MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HCl per 

megagram (ton) of throughput 

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production 

for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of HF per 

megagram (ton) of throughput 

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 

micrograms per cubic meter 

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 

micrograms per cubic meter 

(iv) If you have multiple tunnel or 

roller kilns at your facility and the total 

facility maximum potential HClequivalent emissions (Emax total) are 

greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

determine the combination of maximum 

process rates that would ensure that 

total facility maximum potential HClequivalent remains at or below the HClequivalent limit. The maximum process 

rates would become your operating 

limits for process rate and must be 

included in your OM&M plan. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(h) For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not 

addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or 

that is using process changes as a means 

of meeting the emission limits in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must meet the 

requirements in § 63.8(f) and paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Submit a request for approval of 

alternative monitoring procedures to the 

Administrator no later than the 

notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. 

(i) A description of the alternative 

APCD or process changes. 

(ii) The type of monitoring device or 

procedure that will be used. 

(iii) The operating parameters that 

will be monitored. 

(iv) The frequency that the operating 

parameter values will be determined 

and recorded to establish continuous 

compliance with the operating limits. 

(2) Establish site-specific operating 

limits during the performance test based 

on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring 

procedures request and, as applicable, 

as specified in Table 4 to this subpart. 

§ 63.8600 What are my monitoring 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) You must install, operate, and 

maintain each CMS according to your 

OM&M plan and the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each CMS according to your OM&M 

plan. 

(2) The CMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. To 

have a valid hour of data, you must have 

at least three of four equally spaced data 

values (or at least 75 percent if you 

collect more than four data values per 

hour) for that hour (not including 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-ofcontrol periods, or periods of routine 

control device maintenance covered by 

the routine control device maintenance 

alternative standard as specified in 

§ 63.8570(d)). 

(3) Determine and record the 3-hour 

block averages of all recorded readings, 

calculated after every 3 hours of 

operation as the average of the previous 

3 operating hours. To calculate the 

average for each 3-hour average period, 

you must have at least 75 percent of the 

recorded readings for that period (not 

including startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device 

maintenance covered by the routine 

control device maintenance alternative 

standard as specified in § 63.8570(d)). 

(4) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(5) At all times, maintain the 

monitoring equipment including, but 

not limited to, maintaining necessary 

parts for routine repairs of the 

monitoring equipment. 

(b) For each liquid flow measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a 

position that provides a representative 

flowrate. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of 

the liquid flowrate. 

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a 

flow sensor calibration check. 

(c) For each pressure measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this 

section. 

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or 

as close to a position that provides a 

representative measurement of the 

pressure. 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion. 

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of 

water or a transducer with a minimum 

measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of 

the pressure range. 

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to 

ensure that it is not plugged. 

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge 

calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure range, conduct 

calibration checks or install a new 

pressure sensor. 

(7) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity, all electrical 

connections for continuity, and all 

mechanical connections for leakage. 

(d) For each pH measurement device, 

you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position 

that provides a representative 

measurement of pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration at 

one point daily. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER26OC15.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65549 

(4) At least monthly, inspect all 

components for integrity and all 

electrical connections for continuity. 

(e) For each bag leak detection system, 

you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this 

section. 

(1) Each triboelectric bag leak 

detection system must be installed, 

calibrated, operated, and maintained 

according to the EPA–454/R–98–015, 

‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14). Other types of bag leak 

detection systems must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in 

a manner consistent with the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations. 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per 

actual cubic foot) or less. 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide an output of 

relative PM loadings. 

(4) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with a device to 

continuously record the output signal 

from the sensor. 

(5) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an audible alarm 

system that will sound automatically 

when an increase in relative PM 

emissions over a preset level is detected. 

The alarm must be located where it is 

easily heard by plant operating 

personnel. 

(6) For positive pressure fabric filter 

systems, a bag leak detector must be 

installed in each baghouse compartment 

or cell. 

(7) For negative pressure or induced 

air fabric filters, the bag leak detector 

must be installed downstream of the 

fabric filter. 

(8) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(9) The baseline output must be 

established by adjusting the range and 

the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time according to section 

5.0 of the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance,’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(10) Following initial adjustment of 

the system, the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time may not be adjusted 

except as detailed in your OM&M plan. 

In no case may the sensitivity be 

increased by more than 100 percent or 

decreased more than 50 percent over a 

365-day period unless such adjustment 

follows a complete fabric filter 

inspection which demonstrates that the 

fabric filter is in good operating 

condition, as defined in section 5.2 of 

the ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance,’’ (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14). Record each adjustment. 

(11) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon 

feed rate measurement device, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Locate the measurement device in 

a position that provides a representative 

feed rate measurement. 

(2) At least semiannually, conduct a 

calibration check. 

(g) For each temperature measurement 

device, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Locate the measurement device in 

a position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) Use a measurement device with a 

minimum sensitivity of 1 percent of the 

temperature being measured. 

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a 

calibration check. 

(h) Requests for approval of alternate 

monitoring procedures must meet the 

requirements in §§ 63.8595(h) and 

63.8(f). 

§ 63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

and work practice standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission 

limitation and work practice standard 

that applies to you according to Table 6 

to this subpart. 

(b) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart that applies to you 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.8595 and Table 4 to this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status containing the 

results of the initial compliance 

demonstration according to the 

requirements in § 63.8630(e). 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§ 63.8615 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

(a) You must monitor and collect data 

according to this section. 

(b) Except for periods of monitor 

malfunctions, associated repairs, and 

required quality assurance or control 

activities (including, as applicable, 

calibration checks and required zero 

and span adjustments), you must 

monitor continuously (or collect data at 

all required intervals) at all times that 

the affected source is operating. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device 

maintenance as specified in § 63.8570(d) 

when the affected source is operating. 

(c) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring malfunctions, 

associated repairs, out-of-control 

periods, or required quality assurance or 

control activities for purposes of 

calculating data averages. You must use 

all the valid data collected during all 

other periods in assessing compliance. 

Any averaging period for which you do 

not have valid monitoring data and such 

data are required constitutes a deviation 

from the monitoring requirements. 

§ 63.8620 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations and work practice standards? 

(a) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limit, 

operating limit, and work practice 

standard in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this 

subpart that applies to you according to 

the methods specified in Table 7 to this 

subpart. 

(b) For each affected source that is 

subject to the emission limits specified 

in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not 

addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or 

that is using process changes as a means 

of meeting the emission limits in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each 

emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 

and each operating limit established as 

required in § 63.8595(h)(2) according to 

the methods specified in your approved 

alternative monitoring procedures 

request, as described in §§ 63.8595(h)(1) 

and 63.8(f). 

(c) You must report each instance in 

which you did not meet each emission 

limit and operating limit in this subpart 

that applies to you. These instances are 

deviations from the emission limitations 

in this subpart. These deviations must 

be reported according to the 

requirements in § 63.8635(c)(8). 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the operating limits in 

Table 2 to this subpart for visible 

emissions (VE) from tunnel or roller 

kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped 

with DIFF, DLS/FF, or other dry control 

device by monitoring VE at each kiln 

stack according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Perform daily VE observations of 

each kiln stack according to the 

procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7. You must conduct 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the Method 22 test while the affected 

source is operating under normal 

conditions. The duration of each 

Method 22 test must be at least 15 

minutes. 

(2) If VE are observed during any 

daily test conducted using Method 22 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, you 

must promptly initiate and complete 

corrective actions according to your 

OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 

30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for 

any kiln stack, you may decrease the 

frequency of Method 22 testing from 

daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE 

are observed during any weekly test, 

you must promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to 

your OM&M plan, resume Method 22 

testing of that kiln stack on a daily basis, 

and maintain that schedule until no VE 

are observed in 30 consecutive daily 

tests, at which time you may again 

decrease the frequency of Method 22 

testing to a weekly basis. 

(3) If VE are observed during any test 

conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, you must report 

these deviations by following the 

requirements in § 63.8635. 

Notifications, Reports, and Records 

§ 63.8630 What notifications must I submit 

and when? 

(a) You must submit all of the 

notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c), 

63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), 

(g)(1), and (h) that apply to you, by the 

dates specified. 

(b) You must submit all of the 

notifications specified in Table 9 to this 

subpart that apply to you, by the dates 

specified. 

(c) If you are required to conduct a 

performance test or other initial 

compliance demonstration as specified 

in Tables 4 and 6 to this subpart, your 

Notification of Compliance Status as 

specified in Table 9 to this subpart must 

include the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) The requirements in § 63.9(h)(2)(i). 

(2) The operating limit parameter 

values established for each affected 

source with supporting documentation 

and a description of the procedure used 

to establish the values. 

(3) For each APCD that includes a 

fabric filter, if a bag leak detection 

system is used, analysis and supporting 

documentation demonstrating 

conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for bag leak detection 

systems in § 63.8600(e). 

(d) If you own or operate an affected 

kiln that is subject to the work practice 

standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 

to this subpart, and you intend to use a 

fuel other than natural gas or equivalent 

to fire the affected kiln, your 

notification of alternative fuel use must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Identification of the affected kiln. 

(3) Reason you are unable to use 

natural gas or equivalent fuel, including 

the date when the natural gas 

curtailment was declared or the natural 

gas supply interruption began. 

(4) Type of alternative fuel that you 

intend to use. 

(5) Dates when the alternative fuel use 

is expected to begin and end. 

§ 63.8635 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

(a) You must submit each report in 

Table 10 to this subpart that applies to 

you. 

(b) Unless the Administrator has 

approved a different schedule for 

submission of reports under § 63.10(a), 

you must submit each report by the date 

in Table 10 to this subpart and as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section. 

(1) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your affected source in § 63.8545 and 

ending on either June 30 or December 

31. This reporting period must be at 

least 6 months, but less than 12 months. 

For example, if your compliance date is 

March 1, then the first semiannual 

reporting period would begin on March 

1 and end on December 31. 

(2) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked or delivered no later than 

July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and 

December 31, respectively. 

(3) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(4) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked or delivered 

no later than July 31 or January 31 for 

compliance periods ending on June 30 

and December 31, respectively. 

(5) For each affected source that is 

subject to permitting regulations 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 

part 71, and if the permitting authority 

has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the 

first and subsequent compliance reports 

according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of the 

dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (8) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after 

reasonable inquiry, the statements and 

information in the report are true, 

accurate, and complete. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(4) A description of control device 

maintenance performed while the 

control device was offline and the 

affected source controlled by the control 

device was operating, including the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The date and time when the 

control device was shut down and 

restarted. 

(ii) Identification of the affected 

source that was operating and the 

number of hours that the affected source 

operated while the control device was 

offline. 

(iii) A statement of whether or not the 

control device maintenance was 

included in your approved routine 

control device maintenance request 

developed as specified in § 63.8570(d). 

If the control device maintenance was 

included in your approved routine 

control device maintenance request, 

then you must report the information in 

paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) The total amount of time that the 

affected source controlled by the control 

device operated during the current 

semiannual compliance period and 

during the previous semiannual 

compliance period. 

(B) The amount of time that each 

affected source controlled by the control 

device operated while the control 

device was offline for maintenance 

covered under the routine control 

device maintenance alternative standard 

during the current semiannual 

compliance period and during the 

previous semiannual compliance 

period. 

(C) Based on the information recorded 

under paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of 

this section, compute the annual 

percent of affected source operating 

uptime during which the control device 

was offline for routine maintenance 

using Equation 9. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65551 

Where: 

RM = Annual percentage of affected source 

uptime during which control device was 

offline for routine control device 

maintenance 

DTp = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance alternative standard for the 

previous semiannual compliance period 

DTc = Control device downtime claimed 

under the routine control device 

maintenance alternative standard for the 

current semiannual compliance period 

SUp = Affected source uptime for the 

previous semiannual compliance period 

SUc = Affected source uptime for the current 

semiannual compliance period 

(5) If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations (emission limits or 

operating limits) or work practice 

standards that apply to you, the 

compliance report must contain a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations or work 

practice standards during the reporting 

period. 

(6) If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, the 

compliance report must contain a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-ofcontrol during the reporting period. 

(7) The first compliance report must 

contain the startup production rate for 

each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile 

press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, 

and sanitaryware tunnel kiln; the 

minimum APCD inlet temperature for 

each APCD; and the temperature profile 

for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor 

tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, 

and sanitaryware tunnel kiln without an 

APCD. 

(8) For each deviation that occurs at 

an affected source, report such events in 

the compliance report by including the 

information in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) The date, time, and duration of the 

deviation. 

(ii) A list of the affected sources or 

equipment for which the deviation 

occurred. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

any emission limit, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

(d) For each deviation from an 

emission limitation (emission limit or 

operating limit) occurring at an affected 

source where you are using a CMS to 

comply with the emission limitations in 

this subpart, you must include the 

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(4) and (c)(8), and paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (11) of this section. This 

includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

and routine control device maintenance. 

(1) The total operating time of each 

affected source during the reporting 

period. 

(2) The date and time that each CMS 

was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(3) The date, time, and duration that 

each CMS was out-of-control, including 

the pertinent information in your 

OM&M plan. 

(4) Whether each deviation occurred 

during routine control device 

maintenance covered in your approved 

routine control device maintenance 

alternative standard or during another 

period, and the cause of each deviation 

(including unknown cause, if 

applicable). 

(5) A description of any corrective 

action taken to return the affected unit 

to its normal or usual manner of 

operation. 

(6) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to startup, 

shutdown, control equipment problems, 

process problems, other known causes, 

and other unknown causes. 

(7) A summary of the total duration of 

CMS downtime during the reporting 

period and the total duration of CMS 

downtime as a percent of the total 

source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(8) A brief description of the process 

units. 

(9) A brief description of the CMS. 

(10) The date of the latest CMS 

certification or audit. 

(11) A description of any changes in 

CMS, processes, or control equipment 

since the last reporting period. 

(e) If you have obtained a title V 

operating permit according to 40 CFR 

part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must 

report all deviations as defined in this 

subpart in the semiannual monitoring 

report required by 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 

71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a 

compliance report according to Table 8 

to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report 

required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 

40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the 

compliance report includes all required 

information concerning deviations from 

any emission limitation (including any 

operating limit), then submitting the 

compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations 

in the semiannual monitoring report. 

However, submitting a compliance 

report will not otherwise affect any 

obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to 

the permitting authority. 

(f) If you own or operate an affected 

kiln that is subject to the work practice 

standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 

to this subpart, and you use a fuel other 

than natural gas or equivalent to fire the 

affected kiln, you must submit a report 

of alternative fuel use within 10 

working days after terminating the use 

of the alternative fuel. The report must 

include the information in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (6) of this section. 

(1) Company name and address. 

(2) Identification of the affected kiln. 

(3) Reason for using the alternative 

fuel. 

(4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire 

the affected kiln. 

(5) Dates that the use of the alternative 

fuel started and ended. 

(6) Amount of alternative fuel used. 

(g) Within 60 calendar days after the 

date of completing each performance 

test (as defined in § 63.2) required by 

this subpart, you must submit the 

results of the performance test following 

the procedure specified in either 

paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html) at the time of the test, you 

must submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA via the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http://

cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data 

must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT Web site. If you claim 

that some of the performance test 

information being submitted is 

confidential business information (CBI), 

you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT or an alternate electronic file 

consistent with the XML schema listed 

on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULESER26OC15.029</MATH>
65552 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

§ 63.8640 What records must I keep? 

(a) You must keep the records listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) A copy of each notification and 

report that you submitted to comply 

with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial 

Notification or Notification of 

Compliance Status that you submitted, 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). 

(2) Records of performance tests as 

required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii). 

(3) Records relating to control device 

maintenance and documentation of your 

approved routine control device 

maintenance request, if you request to 

use the alternative standard under 

§ 63.8570(d). 

(b) You must keep the records 

required in Table 7 to this subpart to 

show continuous compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you. 

(c) You must also maintain the 

records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (10) of this section. 

(1) For each bag leak detection 

system, records of each alarm, the time 

of the alarm, the time corrective action 

was initiated and completed, and a brief 

description of the cause of the alarm 

and the corrective action taken. 

(2) For each deviation, record the 

information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) The date, time, and duration of the 

deviation. 

(ii) A list of the affected sources or 

equipment. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

any emission limit and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

(iv) Actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.8570(b) and any corrective actions 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation. 

(3) For each affected source, records 

of production rates on a ton throughput 

processed basis. 

(4) Records for any approved 

alternative monitoring or test 

procedures. 

(5) Records of maintenance and 

inspections performed on the APCD. 

(6) Current copies of your OM&M 

plan, including any revisions, with 

records documenting conformance. 

(7) Logs of the information required in 

paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this 

section to document proper operation of 

your sanitaryware shuttle kiln. 

(i) Records of the firing time and 

temperature cycle for each sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln. If all shuttle kilns use the 

same time and temperature cycles, one 

copy may be maintained for each kiln. 

Reference numbers must be assigned to 

use in log sheets. 

(ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, 

a log that details the time and 

temperature protocol reference number, 

and an indication of whether the 

appropriate time and temperature cycle 

was fired. 

(iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of 

greenware fired in the shuttle kiln and 

an indication of whether the tonnage 

was below the maximum tonnage for 

that specific kiln. 

(8) Logs of the maintenance 

procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance 

requirements of the sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln work practice standards specified 

in Table 3 to this subpart. 

(9) For periods of startup and 

shutdown, records of the following 

information: 

(i) The date, time, and duration of 

each startup and/or shutdown period, 

recording the periods when the affected 

source was subject to the standard 

applicable to startup and shutdown. 

(ii) For periods of startup, the 

production rate and exhaust 

temperature prior to the time the 

exhaust reaches the minimum APCD 

inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller 

kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile 

spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns with an APCD) or the temperature 

profile is attained (for ceramic tile roller 

kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile 

spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns with no APCD). 

(iii) For periods of shutdown, the 

production rate and exhaust 

temperature after the time the exhaust 

falls below the minimum APCD inlet 

temperature (for ceramic tile roller 

kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile 

spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns with an APCD) or the temperature 

profile is no longer maintained (for 

ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press 

dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no 

APCD). 

(10) All site-specific parameters, 

temperature profiles, and procedures 

required to be established or developed 

according to the applicable work 

practice standards in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

§ 63.8645 In what form and for how long 

must I keep my records? 

(a) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you 

must keep each record for 5 years 

following the date of each occurrence, 

measurement, maintenance, corrective 

action, report, or record. 

(c) You must keep each record onsite 

for at least 2 years after the date of each 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). You may 

keep the records offsite for the 

remaining 3 years. 

Other Requirements and Information 

§ 63.8655 What parts of the General 

Provisions apply to me? 

Table 11 to this subpart shows which 

parts of the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you. 

§ 63.8660 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a 

delegated authority such as your state, 

local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

your state, local, or tribal agency, then 

that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, 

has the authority to implement and 

enforce this subpart. You should contact 

your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 

out if implementation and enforcement 

of this subpart is delegated to your state, 

local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are 

not transferred to the state, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (6) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

applicability requirements in §§ 63.8535 

and 63.8540, the compliance date 

requirements in § 63.8545, and the nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 22:26 Oct 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR3.SGM 26OCR3

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65553 

opacity emission limitations in 

§ 63.8555. 

(2) Approval of major changes to test 

methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) 

and as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of major changes to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as 

defined in in § 63.90. 

(4) Approval of major changes to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90. 

(5) Approval of an alternative to any 

electronic reporting to the EPA required 

by this subpart. 

(6) Approval of a routine control 

device maintenance request under 

§ 63.8570(d). 

§ 63.8665 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, 

and in this section as follows: 

Air pollution control device (APCD) 

means any equipment that reduces the 

quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to 

the air. 

Bag leak detection system means an 

instrument that is capable of monitoring 

PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 

filter in order to detect bag failures. A 

bag leak detection system includes, but 

is not limited to, an instrument that 

operates on triboelectric, lightscattering, light-transmittance, or other 

effects to monitor relative PM loadings. 

Clay ceramics manufacturing facility 

means a plant site that manufactures 

pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, 

other pressed tile, or sanitaryware (e.g., 

sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics 

manufacturing facilities typically 

process clay, shale, and various 

additives, form the processed materials 

into tile or sanitaryware shapes, and dry 

and fire the ceramic products. Glazes 

are applied to many tile and 

sanitaryware products. A plant site that 

manufactures refractory products, as 

defined in § 63.9824, or brick and 

structural clay products (BSCP), as 

defined in § 63.8515, is not a clay 

ceramics manufacturing facility. 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart 

including, but not limited to, any 

emission limitation (including any 

operating limit) or work practice 

standard; or 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

for any affected source required to 

obtain such a permit. 

Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of 

this subpart, the sum of the 2,3,7,8– 

TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using 

Equation 3 of this subpart. 

Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) 

means an APCD that includes 

continuous injection of hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a duct or reaction 

chamber followed by a fabric filter. 

Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/

FF) means an APCD that includes 

continuous injection of humidified 

hydrated lime or other sorbent into a 

reaction chamber followed by a fabric 

filter. These systems typically include 

recirculation of some of the sorbent. 

Emission limitation means any 

emission limit or operating limit. 

Fabric filter means an APCD used to 

capture PM by filtering a gas stream 

through filter media; also known as a 

baghouse. 

Fired product means clay ceramic or 

sanitaryware products that have gone 

through the firing process via kilns. 

Glaze means a coating of colored, 

opaque, or transparent material applied 

to ceramic products before firing. 

Glaze line means a production line for 

glazing ceramic products, which 

includes glaze spraying (typically 

comprised of one or more glaze spray 

booths) and other types of glazing 

operations (e.g., dipping, flooding, 

centrifugal disc glazing, curtain 

coating). 

Glaze spray booth means a type of 

equipment used for spraying glaze on 

ceramic products. 

Glaze spray operation means any type 

of glaze application that uses glaze 

spraying, including glaze lines and glaze 

spray booths. 

Greenware means clay ceramic or 

sanitaryware products that have not 

gone through the firing process via 

kilns. 

Initial startup means the time at 

which the kiln first reaches a level of 

production that is equal to 75 percent of 

the kiln design capacity or 12 months 

after the affected source begins firing 

clay ceramics, whichever is earlier. 

Kiln design capacity means the 

maximum amount of clay ceramics, in 

Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to 

produce in one year divided by the 

number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), 

taking into account the void space in the 

product, the push rate for the kiln, and 

the stacking pattern, if applicable. If a 

kiln is modified to increase the capacity, 

the design capacity is considered to be 

the capacity following modifications. 

Minimum APCD inlet temperature 

means the minimum temperature that 

kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD 

that ensures the long-term integrity of 

the APCD. 

Particulate matter (PM) means, for 

purposes of this subpart, emissions of 

filterable PM that serve as a measure of 

total particulate emissions, as measured 

by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–3) or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8), and as a surrogate for 

non-mercury metal HAP contained in 

the particulates including, but not 

limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, nickel, and selenium. 

Period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption means a period of 

time during which the supply of natural 

gas to an affected facility is halted for 

reasons beyond the control of the 

facility. An increase in the cost or unit 

price of natural gas does not constitute 

a period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption. 

Plant site means all contiguous or 

adjoining property that is under 

common control, including properties 

that are separated only by a road or 

other public right-of-way. Common 

control includes properties that are 

owned, leased, or operated by the same 

entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any 

combination thereof. 

Responsible official means 

responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 

70.2. 

Roller kiln means a continuous kiln 

similar to a tunnel kiln except that the 

unfired ceramic product travels through 

the kiln in a single layer on rollers. In 

the clay ceramics source category, roller 

kilns are used at ceramic tile 

manufacturing plants. 

Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln 

that is designed with a removable 

superstructure that is tilted or raised 

using hydraulic struts to allow entrance 

and egress. In the clay ceramics source 

category, shuttle kilns are used at 

sanitaryware manufacturing plants. 

Spray dryer means a drying chamber 

used to form a free-flowing powder from 

a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to 

improve handling and compaction. In 

the clay ceramics source category, spray 

dryers are used at ceramic tile 

manufacturing plants. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an affected source and starting the 

production process. 

Startup production rate means the 

kiln, press dryer or spray dryer 

production rate required to bring the 

process unit to the proper operating 

temperature during startup. 

Tunnel kiln means any continuous 

kiln that is not a roller kiln that is used 

to fire clay ceramics. In the clay 

ceramics source category, tunnel kilns 

are used at sanitaryware manufacturing 

plants. 

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD 

that uses water, which may include 

caustic additives or other chemicals, as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65554 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may use any 

of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust 

gases and the sorbent. 

Work practice standard means any 

design, equipment, work practice, 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to 

section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act. 

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63 

As stated in § 63.8555, you must meet 

each emission limit in the following 

table that applies to you: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS

For each . . . You must meet the following emission limits . . . 

1. Collection of all tunnel or roller 

kilns at facility.

HF and HCl emissions must not exceed 62 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (140 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) HCl 

equivalent, under the health-based standard, as determined using Equations 4 and 5. 

2. Existing floor tile roller kiln .......... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.063 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.13 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of 

fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 2.8 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) of fired product. 

3. Existing wall tile roller kiln .......... a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. 

4. Existing first-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired. 

5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze 

spraying.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight 

basis). 

6. Existing sanitaryware manual 

glaze application.

PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

7. Existing sanitaryware spray machine glaze application.PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

8. Existing sanitaryware robot glaze 

application.

PM emissions must not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

9. Existing floor tile spray dryer ...... Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput processed. 

10. Existing wall tile spray dryer ..... Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed. 

11. Existing floor tile press dryer .... Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed. 

12. New or reconstructed floor tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product. 

13. New or reconstructed wall tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product. 

14. New or reconstructed first-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/ton) of greenware fired. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired. 

15. New or reconstructed tile glaze 

line with glaze spraying.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight 

basis). 

16. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware manual glaze application.

PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

17. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

18. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware robot glaze application.

PM emissions must not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

19. New or reconstructed floor tile 

spray dryer.

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput processed. 

20. New or reconstructed wall tile 

spray dryer.

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed. 

21. New or reconstructed floor tile 

press dryer.

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed. 

As stated in § 63.8555, you must meet 

each operating limit in the following 

table that applies to you: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65555 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS

For each . . . You must . . . 

1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped 

with a DIFF or DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating 

time in a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and 

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the performance test for continuous injection systems in which compliance was demonstrated. 

2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped 

with a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber liquid pH for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber 

liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and 

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the HF/HCl and PM performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. 

3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped 

with an ACI system.

Maintain the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the highest average carbon 

flow rate established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. 

4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to 

comply with dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system.

If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system, maintain the stack temperature at or below the highest 4-hour average stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no addon control.a. Maintain no VE from the stack; and 

b. Maintain the kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8595(g)(1) 

if your total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit 

in Table 1 to this subpart; and 

c. Maintain the stack temperature at or below the highest 4-hour average stack temperature established 

during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

6. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a FF.

If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operate and maintain 

the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in 

a 6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the FF stack; and 

7. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a WS.

a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above the average 

pressure drop established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and 

b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

8. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a water curtain.

Conduct daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow to the wet control system; and 

Conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks; and 

Conduct annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment. 

9. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with baffles.

Conduct an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the baffles are in place. 

10. Spray dryer ............................... Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

11. Floor tile press dryer ................. Maintain the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

As stated in § 63.8555, you must 

comply with each work practice 

standard in the following table that 

applies to you: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

For each . . . You must . . . According to one of the following requirements . . . 

1. Existing, new, or reconstructed 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln.

a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in 

§ 63.8665; and 

ii. Develop and use a designed firing time and temperature cycle for 

each sanitaryware shuttle kiln. You must either program the time 

and temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log 

sheet; and 

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in 

tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; and 

iv. For each firing load, document the total tonnage of greenware 

placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum 

load identified in item 1.a.iii; and 

v. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a 

minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of 

temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate firing cycles; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . According to one of the following requirements . . . 

vi. Develop and maintain records for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, 

as specified in § 63.8640. 

2. Existing, new or reconstructed 

ceramic tile roller kiln, 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile 

press dryer or ceramic tile spray 

dryer during periods of startup.

a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Establish the startup production rate for each kiln or dryer; the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD; and temperature 

profile for each kiln or dryer with no APCD and include them in 

your first compliance report, as specified in § 63.8635(c)(7); and 

ii. After initial loading of the kiln or dryer, remain at or below the startup production rate for the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature for a kiln or 

dryer with an APCD or until the kiln or dryer temperature profile is 

attained for a kiln or dryer with no APCD; and 

iii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, begin venting the exhaust from 

the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches the minimum APCD inlet temperature. 

3. Existing, new or reconstructed 

ceramic tile roller kiln, 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile 

press dryer or ceramic tile spray 

dryer during periods of shutdown.

a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Do not load the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum APCD inlet temperature if the kiln 

or dryer is controlled by an APCD or when the kiln or dryer temperature profile is no longer maintained for an uncontrolled kiln or 

dryer; and 

ii. If your kiln or dryer has an APCD, continue to vent the exhaust 

from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below the minimum inlet temperature for 

the APCD. 

4. Existing, new or reconstructed 

ceramic tile roller kiln, 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln, floor tile 

press dryer or ceramic tile spray 

dryer during periods of routine 

control device maintenance.

a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Develop and use a temperature profile for each kiln or dryer; and 

ii. Develop and follow maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a 

minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of 

temperature monitoring devices and controls that regulate air-tofuel ratios; and 

iii. Develop and maintain records for each kiln or dryer, as specified 

in § 63.8640(a)(3). 

As stated in § 63.8595, you must 

conduct each performance test in the 

following table that applies to you: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

1. Tunnel or roller kiln ......... a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points.Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1.

Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 

APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere 

for all affected sources. 

b. Determine velocities and 

volumetric flow rate.

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–1.

You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. 

c. Conduct gas molecular 

weight analysis.

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2.

You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to 

using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative 

to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. 

d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas.Method 4 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3.

e. Measure HF and HCl 

emissions.

i. Method 26A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8; 

or.

You may use Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8, as an alternative to using Method 26A of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8, when no acid PM (e.g., 

HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets emitted by 

sources controlled by a WS) is present. ASTM 

D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative 

to Methods 26 and 26A. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65557 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

ii. Method 320 of appendix 

A of this part.

When using Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

you must follow the analyte spiking procedures of 

section 13 of Method 320 of appendix A of this part, 

unless you can demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar 

source. ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as 

an alternative to Method 320 if the test plan preparation and implementation in Annexes A1–A8 are 

mandatory and the %R in Annex A5 is determined 

for each target analyte. 

f. Measure PM emissions .. i. Method 5 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3; or.

ii. Method 29 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8.

g. Measure Hg emissions Method 29 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8.

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). 

h. Measure dioxin/furan 

emissions.

Method 23 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7.

2. Glaze spray operation ..... a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points.Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1.

Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 

APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere 

for all affected sources. 

b. Determine velocities and 

volumetric flow rate.

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–1.

You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. 

c. Conduct gas molecular 

weight analysis.

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2.

You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to 

using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative 

to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. 

d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas.Method 4 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3.

e. Measure PM emissions Method 5 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3.

f. Measure Hg emissions 

(tile glaze spray operations only).

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–8.

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only). 

3. Spray dryer or floor tile 

press dryer.

a. Select locations of sampling ports and the number of traverse points.Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1.

Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 

APCD and prior to any releases to the atmosphere 

for all affected sources. 

b. Determine velocities and 

volumetric flow rate.

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–1.

You may use Method 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–1, or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to using Method 2 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1. 

c. Conduct gas molecular 

weight analysis.

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2.

You may use Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2, as appropriate, as an alternative to 

using Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) may be used as an alternative 

to the manual procedures (but not the instrumental 

procedures) in Methods 3A and 3B. 

d. Measure moisture content of the stack gas.Method 4 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–3.

e. Measure dioxin/furan 

emissions.

Method 23 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7.

4. Tunnel or roller kiln with 

no add-on control.

a. Establish the operating 

limit(s) for kiln process 

rate if the total facility 

maximum potential HClequivalent emissions are 

greater than the HClequivalent limit in Table 

1 to this subpart.

HCl-equivalent limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart 

and emissions and production data from the 

HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test.

Using the procedures in § 63.8595(g)(1), you must determine the maximum process rate(s) for your kiln(s) 

that would ensure total facility maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the 

HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart. The 

maximum process rate(s) would become your sitespecific process rate operating limit(s). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

b. Establish the stack temperature operating limit.Data from the temperature 

measurement device 

during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

You must continuously measure the stack temperature 

and determine and record the temperature values 

for the three test runs. The highest 4-hour average 

stack temperature of the three test runs establishes 

your maximum site-specific stack temperature operating limit. 

5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is 

complying with PM and/or 

Hg production-based 

emission limits.

Determine the production 

rate during each PM/Hg 

test run in order to determine compliance with 

PM and/or Hg production-based emission limits.

Production data collected 

during the PM/Hg performance tests (e.g., the 

number of ceramic 

pieces and weight per 

piece in the kiln during a 

test run divided by the 

amount of time to fire a 

piece).

You must measure and record the production rate, on 

a ton of throughput processed basis, of the affected 

kiln for each of the three test runs. 

6. Tunnel or roller kiln 

equipped with a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

Establish the operating 

limit for the lime feeder 

setting.

Data from the lime feeder 

during the HF/HCl performance test.

For continuous lime injection systems, you must ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the 

APCD is free-flowing at all times during the performance test and record the feeder setting, on a per ton 

of throughput basis, for the three test runs. If the 

feed rate setting varies during the three test runs, 

determine and record the average feed rate from 

the three test runs. The average of the three test 

runs establishes your minimum site-specific feed 

rate operating limit. 

7. Tunnel or roller kiln 

equipped with a WS.

a. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid pH.

Data from the pH measurement device during 

the HF/HCl performance 

test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

pH, determine and record the block average pH values for the three test runs, and determine and 

record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pH 

measurements for the three test runs. The average 

of the three test runs establishes your minimum 

site-specific liquid pH operating limit. 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate.

Data from the flow rate 

measurement device 

during the HF/HCl and 

PM performance tests.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

flow rate, determine and record the block average 

flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test 

runs. The average of the three test runs establishes 

your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating 

level. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured during the HF/HCl and 

PM tests, the highest of the average values become 

your site-specific operating limit. 

8. Tunnel or roller kiln 

equipped with an ACI system.

Establish the operating 

limit for the average carbon flow rate.

Data from the carbon flow 

rate measurement conducted during the Hg 

performance test.

You must measure the carbon flow rate during each 

test run, determine and record the block average 

carbon flow rate values for the three test runs, and 

determine and record the 3-hour block average of 

the recorded carbon flow rate measurements for the 

three test runs. The average of the three test runs 

establishes your minimum site-specific activated 

carbon flow rate operating limit. 

9. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to comply with 

dioxin/furan emission limit 

without an ACI system.

Establish the stack temperature operating limit.Data from the temperature 

measurement device 

during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

You must continuously measure the stack temperature 

and determine and record the temperature values 

for the three test runs. The highest 4-hour average 

stack temperature of the three test runs establishes 

your maximum site-specific stack temperature operating limit. 

10. Glaze spray operation 

equipped with a WS.

a. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber pressure drop.

Data from the pressure 

drop measurement device during the PM performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber pressure 

drop, determine and record the block average pressure drop values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded pressure drop measurements for the three 

test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65559 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued 

For each . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 

b. Establish the operating 

limit for the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate.

Data from the flow rate 

measurement device 

during the PM performance test.

You must continuously measure the scrubber liquid 

flow rate, determine and record the block average 

flow rate values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded flow rate measurements for the three test 

runs. The average of the three test runs establishes 

your minimum site-specific liquid flow rate operating 

limit. 

11. Spray dryer .................... Establish the operating 

limit for operating temperature.

Data from the temperature 

measurement device 

during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average 

temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the 

recorded temperature measurements for the three 

test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your minimum site-specific operating limit. 

12. Floor tile press dryer ..... Establish the operating 

limit for operating temperature.

Data from the temperature 

measurement device 

during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

You must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine and record the block average 

temperature values for the three test runs, and determine and record the 3-hour block average of the 

recorded temperature measurements for the three 

test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes your maximum site-specific operating limit. 

As stated in § 63.8595(f)(3), you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with 

each dioxin/furan emission limit that 

applies to you by calculating the sum of 

the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the TEFs 

in the following table: 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS

For each dioxin/furan congener . . . 

You must 

calculate its 

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ using 

the following 

TEF . . . 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ................................................................................................................................... 1 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................... 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................... 0 .01 

Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 0 .1 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................... 0 .03 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................... 0 .3 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................. 0 .01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................. 0 .01 

Octachlorodibenzofuran ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0003 

As stated in § 63.8605, you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with 

each emission limitation and work 

practice standard that applies to you 

according to the following table: 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

1. Collection of all tunnel or roller 

kilns at the facility.

a. HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions 

must not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 

lb/hr) HCl equivalent.

i. You measure HF and HCl emissions for each kiln using Method 26 

or 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM 

D6735–01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14); or Method 320 of appendix A of this part or its alternative, 

ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14); and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF for each kiln 

using Equation 4 to this subpart; and 

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for all kilns at the facility using 

Equation 5 to this subpart; and 

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does not exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/

hr). 

2. Existing floor tile roller kiln .......... a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/

ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the applicable operating limits 

listed in Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 0.063 kg/Mg (0.13 lb/

ton) of fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E– 

04 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.3 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 2.8 ng/kg of fired product.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 2.8 ng/kg of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 2.8 ng/kg of fired 

product. 

3. Existing wall tile roller kiln ........... a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) 

of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of 

fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E– 

04 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired 

product. 

4. Existing first-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of 

greenware fired.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) 

of greenware fired; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of 

greenware fired. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/

ton) of greenware fired.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E– 

04 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65561 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.3 E–04 kg/Mg (2.6 E–04 lb/

ton) of greenware fired. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware 

fired.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware fired; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 3.3 ng/kg of 

greenware fired. 

5. Existing tile glaze line with glaze 

spraying.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight 

basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.93 

kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/

ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed 

(dry weight basis).

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E– 

04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/

ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

6. Existing sanitaryware manual 

glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire 

glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 18 kg/

Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

7. Existing sanitaryware spray machine glaze application.a. PM emissions must not exceed 

6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire 

glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 6.2 kg/

Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

8. Existing sanitaryware robot glaze 

application.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire 

glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 4.5 kg/

Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

9. Existing floor tile spray dryer ...... a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput 

processed.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput processed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput 

processed. 

10. Existing wall tile spray dryer ..... a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of 

throughput processed. 

11. Existing floor tile press dryer .... a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of 

throughput processed. 

12. New or reconstructed floor tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/

ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of 

fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/

ton) of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E– 

05 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 2.0 E–05 kg/Mg (3.9 E–05 lb/

ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired 

product. 

13. New or reconstructed wall tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) 

of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of 

fired product. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E– 

04 lb/ton) of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 1.1 E–04 kg/Mg (2.1 E–04 lb/

ton) of fired product. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired 

product. 

14. New or reconstructed first-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kiln.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of 

greenware fired.

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8, 

over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(1), do not exceed 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/

ton) of greenware fired; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of 

greenware fired. 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/

ton) of greenware fired.

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E– 

04 lb/ton) of greenware fired; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65563 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 6.1 E–05 kg/Mg (1.3 E–04 lb/

ton) of greenware fired. 

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware 

fired.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware fired; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.99 ng/kg of 

greenware fired. 

15. New or reconstructed tile glaze 

line with glaze spraying.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight 

basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 0.31 

kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); 

and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of 

first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 

8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/

ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed 

(dry weight basis).

i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E– 

04 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which Hg emissions did not exceed 8.0 E–05 kg/Mg (1.6 E–04 lb/

ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

16. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware manual glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire 

glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 2.0 kg/

Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

17. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire 

glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.6 kg/

Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

18. New or reconstructed 

sanitaryware robot glaze application.

a. PM emissions must not exceed 

1.2 kg/Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire 

glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).

i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, over the period of the initial performance test, according to the calculations in § 63.8595(f)(2), do not exceed 1.2 kg/

Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which PM emissions did not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis). 

19. New or reconstructed floor tile 

spray dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput processed.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput processed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.071 ng/kg of 

throughput processed. 

20. New or reconstructed wall tile 

spray dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput processed; and 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.058 ng/kg of 

throughput processed. 

21. New or reconstructed floor tile 

press dryer.

a. Dioxin/furan emissions must not 

exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed.

i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured using Method 23 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7, over the period of the initial performance 

test, do not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput processed; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65564 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

ii. You establish and have a record of the operating limits listed in 

Table 2 to this subpart over the 3-hour performance test during 

which dioxin/furan emissions did not exceed 0.024 ng/kg of 

throughput processed. 

22. Existing, new, or reconstructed 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln.

a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel; and 

ii. Develop a designed firing time and temperature cycle for the 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln. You must either program the time and 

temperature cycle into your kiln or track each step on a log sheet; 

and 

iii. Label each sanitaryware shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in 

tons) of greenware that can be fired in the kiln during a single firing 

cycle; and 

iv. Develop maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, 

specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles. 

As stated in § 63.8620, you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with each emission limitation and work 

practice standard that applies to you 

according to the following table: 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK

PRACTICE STANDARDS

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped 

with a DIFF or DLS/FF.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 1 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for kilns equipped 

with DIFF or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection system, as prescribed in 

63.8450(e), initiating corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak 

detection system alarm and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent 

of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period; in 

calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm 

time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is 

counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual 

amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency specified in § 63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/

FF stack; and 

ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a load cell, carrier gas/lime 

flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system, or 

other system; recording all monitor or sensor output, and if lime is 

found not to be free flowing, promptly initiating and completing corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; recording the 

feeder setting once each shift of operation to verify that the feeder 

setting is being maintained at or above the level established during 

the HF/HCl performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped 

with a WS.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 2 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for kilns equipped 

with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber liquid pH data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid pH data to 3-hour block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average scrubber liquid pH 

for each 3-hour block period at or above the average scrubber liquid pH established during the HF/HCl performance test in which 

compliance was demonstrated; and 

ii Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the highest average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the 

HF/HCl and PM performance tests in which compliance was demonstrated. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65565 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK

PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped 

with an ACI system.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 3 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns equipped with 

ACI system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data according to § 63.8600(a); reducing the carbon flow rate data to 3-hour block averages according to 

§ 63.8600(a); maintaining the average carbon flow rate for each 3- 

hour block period at or above the highest average carbon flow rate 

established during the Hg and dioxin/furan performance tests in 

which compliance was demonstrated. 

4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending to 

comply with dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 4 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns intending to 

comply with dioxin/furan emission limit without an ACI system.

Collecting the stack temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); and 

maintaining the stack temperature at or below the highest stack 

temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in 

which compliance was demonstrated. 

5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no addon control.a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 5 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for tunnel or roller 

kilns with no add-on control.

i. Performing VE observations of the stack at the frequency specified 

in § 63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7; 

and maintaining no VE from the stack. 

ii. If your last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the health-based standard in Table 1 to 

this subpart, collecting the kiln process rate data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the kiln process rate data to 3-hour block 

averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average kiln 

process rate for each 3-hour block period at or below the kiln process rate determined according to § 63.8595(g)(1). 

iii. Collecting the stack temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); 

and maintaining the stack temperature at or below the highest 

stack temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance 

test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

6. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a FF.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 6 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for glaze spray operations equipped with a FF.

If you use a bag leak detection system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; operating 

and maintaining the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged 

for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month 

block reporting period; in calculating this operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action 

is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if you take 

longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is 

counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action; or performing VE observations of the FF stack at the 

frequency specified in § 63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7; and maintaining no VE from the FF stack. 

7. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a WS.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 7 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for kilns equipped 

with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber pressure drop data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average pressure drop established during the PM performance 

test in which compliance was demonstrated; and 

ii. Collecting the scrubber liquid flow rate data according to 

§ 63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour 

block averages according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber liquid flow rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average scrubber liquid flow rate established during the PM 

performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

8. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with a water curtain.

a. Each emission limit in Table 1 

to this subpart and each operating limit in Item 8 of Table 2 to 

this subpart for kilns equipped 

with a water curtain.

i. Conducting daily inspections to verify the presence of water flow to 

the wet control system; and 

ii. Conducting weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and 

control equipment for leaks; and 

iii. Conducting annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment. 

9. Glaze spray operation equipped 

with baffles.

Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 9 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns equipped with 

baffles.

Conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the 

baffles are in place. 

10. Spray dryer ............................... Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 10 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for spray dryers.

Collecting the operating temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); 

reducing the operating temperature data to 3-hour block averages 

according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65566 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 7 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND WORK

PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

For each . . . For the following . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

11. Floor tile press dryer ................. Each emission limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and each operating 

limit in Item 11 of Table 2 to this 

subpart for floor tile press dryers..

Collecting the operating temperature data according to § 63.8600(a); 

reducing the operating temperature data to 3-hour block averages 

according to § 63.8600(a); maintaining the average operating temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average operating temperature established during the dioxin/furan performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. 

12. Sanitaryware shuttle kiln ........... a. Minimize HAP emissions ........... i. Maintaining records documenting your use of natural gas, or an 

equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times except during periods of 

natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; and 

ii. If you intend to use an alternative fuel, submitting a notification of 

alternative fuel use within 48 hours of the declaration of a period of 

natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, as defined in 

§ 63.8665; and 

iii. Submitting a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days 

after terminating the use of the alternative fuel, as specified in 

§ 63.8635(g); and 

iv. Using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each 

sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and 

v. For each firing load, documenting the total tonnage of greenware 

placed in the kiln to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum 

load identified in Item 1.a.iii of Table 3 to this subpart; and 

vi. Following maintenance procedures for each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance of temperature monitoring devices, controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, 

and controls that regulate firing cycles; and 

vii. Developing and maintaining records for each sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln, as specified in § 63.8640. 

As stated in § 63.8545, you must meet 

each compliance date in the following 

table that applies to you: 

TABLE 8 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—COMPLIANCE DATES

If you have a(n) . . . Then you must . . . No later than . . . 

1. New or reconstructed affected source and 

the initial startup of your affected source is 

after December 18, 2014, but before December 28, 2015.

Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 

1, 2, and 3 to this subpart.

December 28, 2015. 

2. New or reconstructed affected source and 

the initial startup of your affected source is 

after December 28, 2015.

Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 

1, 2, and 3 to this subpart.

Initial startup of your affected source. 

3. Existing affected source ................................. Comply with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in Tables 

1, 2, and 3 to this subpart.

December 26, 2018. 

4. Existing area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP by adding a 

new affected source or by reconstructing.

Be in compliance with this subpart .................. Initial startup of your affected source as a 

major source. 

5. New area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction commenced after December 18, 2014) that increases its emissions or its potential to emit 

such that it becomes a major source of HAP.

Be in compliance with this subpart .................. Initial startup of your affected source as a 

major source. 

As stated in § 63.8630, you must 

submit each notification that applies to 

you according to the following table: 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS

If you . . . You must . . . No later than . . . As specified in . . . 

1. Start up your affected source 

before December 28, 2015.

Submit an Initial Notification ......... June 22, 2016 ............................... § 63.9(b)(2). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65567 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS—Continued 

If you . . . You must . . . No later than . . . As specified in . . . 

2. Start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or 

after December 28, 2015.

Submit an Initial Notification ......... 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.§ 63.9(b)(2). 

3. Are required to conduct a performance test.Submit a notification of intent to 

conduct a performance test.

60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to 

begin.

§ 63.7(b)(1). 

4. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration that includes a performance test according to the requirements in 

Table 4 to this subpart.

Submit a Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results.60 calendar days following the 

completion of the performance 

test, by the close of business.

§ 63.9(h) and § 63.10(d)(2). 

5. Are required to conduct a compliance demonstration required 

in Table 6 to this subpart that 

does not include a performance 

test (i.e., compliance demonstrations for the work practice standards).

Submit a Notification of Compliance Status.30 calendar days following the 

completion of the compliance 

demonstrations, by the close of 

business.

§ 63.9(h). 

6. Request to use the routine control device maintenance alternative standard according to 

§ 63.8570(d).

Submit your request ..................... 120 calendar days before the 

compliance date specified in 

§ 63.8545.

7. Own or operate an affected kiln 

that is subject to the work practice standard specified in Item 1 

of Table 3 to this subpart, and 

you intend to use a fuel other 

than natural gas or equivalent to 

fire the affected kiln.

Submit a notification of alternative 

fuel use.

48 hours following the declaration 

of a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, 

as defined in § 63.8665.

As stated in § 63.8635, you must 

submit each report that applies to you 

according to the following table: 

TABLE 10 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS

You must submit . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 

1. A compliance report ....................................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or work practice standards 

that apply to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice standards during the 

reporting period. If there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, a statement 

that there were no periods during which the 

CMS was out-of-control during the reporting 

period.

Semiannually according to the requirements 

in § 63.8635(b). 

b. If you have a deviation from any emission 

limitation (emission limit, operating limit) 

during the reporting period, the report must 

contain the information in § 63.8635(c)(8). If 

there were periods during which the CMS 

was out-of-control, as specified in your 

OM&M plan, the report must contain the information in § 63.8635(d).

Semiannually according to the requirements 

in § 63.8635(b). 

2. A report of alternative fuel use ....................... The information in § 63.8635(g) ....................... If you are subject to the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart, 

and you use an alternative fuel to fire an affected kiln, by letter within 10 working days 

after terminating the use of the alternative 

fuel. 

As stated in § 63.8655, you must 

comply with the General Provisions in 

§§ 63.1 through 63.16 that apply to you 

according to the following table: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65568 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 11 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart KKKKK? 

§ 63.1 .................................. Applicability ........................ Initial applicability determination; applicability after 

standard established; permit requirements; extensions, notifications.

Yes. 

§ 63.2 .................................. Definitions .......................... Definitions for part 63 standards ................................... Yes. 

§ 63.3 .................................. Units and Abbreviations .... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards .............. Yes. 

§ 63.4 .................................. Prohibited Activities ........... Compliance date; circumvention; severability ............... Yes. 

§ 63.5 .................................. Construction/Reconstruction.Applicability; applications; approvals ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.6(a) .............................. Applicability ........................ General Provisions (GP) apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to area sources that become 

major.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction 

or reconstruction commences for section 112(f).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(5) ......................... Notification ......................... Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal.Yes. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) ......................... [Reserved].

§ 63.6(b)(7) ......................... Compliance Dates for New 

and Reconstructed Area 

Sources That Become 

Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with 

major source standards immediately upon becoming 

major, regardless of whether required to comply 

when they were area sources.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................... Compliance Dates for Existing Sources.Comply according to date in subpart, which must be 

no later than 3 years after effective date; for section 

112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective 

date unless compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(c)(5) .......................... Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that become major must comply with 

major source standards by date indicated in subpart 

or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years).

Yes. 

§ 63.6(d) .............................. [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...................... Operation & Maintenance General Duty to minimize emissions ............................ No. See § 63.8570(b) for 

general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..................... Operation & Maintenance Requirement to correct malfunctions ASAP ................. No. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ..................... Operation & Maintenance Operation and maintenance requirements enforceable 

independent of emissions limitations.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) ......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ......................... Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction Plan (SSMP).

Requirement for startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) and SSMP; content of SSMP.

No. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) .......................... Compliance Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with emission standards at all times 

except during SSM.

No. 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................... Methods for Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on performance test, operation and 

maintenance plans, records, inspection.

Yes. 

§ 63.6(g) .............................. Alternative Standard .......... Procedures for getting an alternative standard ............. Yes. 

§ 63.6(h) .............................. Opacity/VE Standards ....... Requirements for opacity and VE standards ................ No, not applicable. 

§ 63.6(i) ............................... Compliance Extension ....... Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension.Yes. 

§ 63.6(j) ............................... Presidential Compliance 

Exemption.

President may exempt source category ....................... Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ................... Performance Test Dates ... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and 

other compliance demonstrations for emission limits 

and work practice standards; must conduct 180 

days after first subject to rule.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(3) ......................... Section 114 Authority ........ Administrator may require a performance test under 

CAA section 114 at any time.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)(4) ......................... Notification of Delay in 

Performance Testing 

Due To Force Majeure.

Must notify Administrator of delay in performance testing due to force majeure.Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(1) ......................... Notification of Performance 

Test.

Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ........ Yes. 

§ 63.7(b)(2) ......................... Notification of Rescheduling.Must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled 

date of rescheduled date.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(c) .............................. Quality Assurance (QA)/

Test Plan.

Requirements; test plan approval procedures; performance audit requirements; internal and external QA 

procedures for testing.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(d) .............................. Testing Facilities ................ Requirements for testing facilities ................................. Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ......................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions.No, § 63.8595 specifies requirements. 

Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM; not a 

violation to exceed standard during SSM.

Yes. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 65569 

TABLE 11 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart KKKKK? 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(3) ................... Conditions for Conducting 

Performance Tests.

Must conduct according to subpart and EPA test 

methods unless Administrator approves alternative; 

must have at least three test runs of at least 1 hour 

each; compliance is based on arithmetic mean of 

three runs; conditions when data from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(4) ......................... Testing under Section 114 Administrator’s authority to require testing under section 114 of the Act.Yes. 

§ 63.7(f) ............................... Alternative Test Method .... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval 

to use an alternative test method.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(g) .............................. Performance Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in performance test report; 

must submit performance test data 60 days after 

end of test with the notification of compliance status.

Yes. 

§ 63.7(h) .............................. Waiver of Tests ................. Procedures for Administrator to waive performance 

test.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(1) ......................... Applicability of Monitoring 

Requirements.

Subject to all monitoring requirements in subpart ........ Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(2) ......................... Performance Specifications Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(a)(3) ......................... [Reserved] ......................... ........................................................................................ No. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) ......................... Monitoring with Flares ....... Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ...................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(b)(1) ......................... Monitoring .......................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless 

Administrator approves alternative.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................... Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems.Specific requirements for installing and reporting on 

monitoring systems.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1) .......................... Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance.Maintenance consistent with good air pollution control 

practices.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...................... Routine and Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSMP.No. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ...................... SSM not in SSMP ............. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not 

described in SSMP.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ..................... Compliance with Operation 

and Maintenance Requirements.

How Administrator determines if source complying 

with operation and maintenance requirements.

No. 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................... Monitoring System Installation.Must install to get representative emission and parameter measurements.Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) .......................... CMS Requirements ........... Requirements for CMS .................................................. No, § 63.8600 specifies requirements. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) .......................... Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) 

Minimum Procedures.

COMS minimum procedures ......................................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) .......................... CMS Requirements ........... Zero and high level calibration check requirements ..... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ................... CMS Requirements ........... Out-of-control periods .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2) ............. CMS Quality Control ......... Requirements for CMS quality control .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ......................... CMS Quality Control ......... Written procedures for CMS ......................................... No, § 63.8575(b)(9) specifies requirements. 

§ 63.8(e) .............................. CMS Performance Evaluation.Requirements for CMS performance evaluation ........... Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .................... Alternative Monitoring 

Method.

Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative 

monitoring.

Yes. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) .......................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test.Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative 

relative accuracy test for continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS).

No, not applicable. 

§ 63.8(g) .............................. Data Reduction .................. COMS and CEMS data reduction requirements ........... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(a) .............................. Notification Requirements Applicability; State delegation ....................................... Yes. 

§ 63.9(b) .............................. Initial Notifications ............. Requirements for initial notifications ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.9(c) .............................. Request for Compliance 

Extension.

Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed 

BACT/LAER.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(d) .............................. Notification of Special 

Compliance Requirements for New Source.

For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years 

after effective date.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(e) .............................. Notification of Performance 

Test.

Notify Administrator 60 days prior ................................. Yes. 

§ 63.9(f) ............................... Notification of VE/Opacity 

Test.

Notify Administrator 30 days prior ................................. No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(g)(1) ......................... Additional Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of performance evaluation .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.9(g)(2)–(3) ................... Additional Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of COMS data use; notification that relative accuracy alternative criterion were exceeded.No, not applicable. 

§ 63.9(h) .............................. Notification of Compliance 

Status.

Contents; submittal requirements ................................. Yes. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65570 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 11 TO SUBPART KKKKK OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART KKKKK—Continued 

Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart KKKKK? 

§ 63.9(i) ............................... Adjustment of Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for Administrator to approve change in 

when notifications must be submitted.

Yes. 

§ 63.9(j) ............................... Change in Previous Information.Must submit within 15 days after the change ............... Yes. 

§ 63.10(a) ............................ Recordkeeping/Reporting .. Applicability; general information .................................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ....................... General Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements .................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) .................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups 

and shutdowns.

No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................... Records Related to SSM .. Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard .............. No. See § 63.8640(c)(2) for 

recordkeeping of (1) 

date, time and duration; 

(2) listing of affected 

source or equipment, and 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the 

standard; and (3) actions 

to minimize emissions 

and correct the failure. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ................... Records Related to SSM .. Maintenance records ..................................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ............ Records Related to SSM .. Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM ........ No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(xii) and 

(xiv).

CMS Records .................... Records when CMS is malfunctioning, inoperative or 

out-of-control.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ................. Records ............................. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy 

test.

No, not applicable. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ....................... Records ............................. Applicability Determinations .......................................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(15) ............... Records ............................. Additional records for CMS ........................................... No, §§ 63.8575 and 

63.8640 specify requirements. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) and (2) ........... General Reporting Requirements.Requirements for reporting; performance test results 

reporting.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ....................... Reporting Opacity or VE 

Observations.

Requirements for reporting opacity and VE .................. No, not applicable. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ....................... Progress Reports .............. Must submit progress reports on schedule if under 

compliance extension.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ....................... SSM Reports ..................... Contents and submission .............................................. No. See § 63.8635(c)(8) for 

malfunction reporting requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(1)–(3) ................. Additional CMS Reports .... Requirements for CMS reporting .................................. No, §§ 63.8575 and 

63.8635 specify requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ....................... Reporting COMS data ....... Requirements for reporting COMS data with performance test data.No, not applicable. 

§ 63.10(f) ............................. Waiver for Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Procedures for Administrator to waive .......................... Yes. 

§ 63.11 ................................ Flares ................................. Requirement for flares ................................................... No, not applicable. 

§ 63.12 ................................ Delegation ......................... State authority to enforce standards ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.13 ................................ Addresses .......................... Addresses for reports, notifications, requests ............... Yes. 

§ 63.14 ................................ Incorporation by Reference Materials incorporated by reference ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.15 ................................ Availability of Information .. Information availability; confidential information ........... Yes. 

§ 63.16 ................................ Performance Track Provisions.Requirements for Performance Track member facilities Yes. 

[FR Doc. 2015–25724 Filed 10–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES