From: Nizich, Sharon

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:57 PM

To: 'Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov'

Cc: Jordan, Scott; Eck, Janet; Barnett, Keith; VanLare, Paula

Subject: EO 12866_Brick Clay 2060_AP69 Final Submittal

Hello AaronPlease find attached the final submittal for ROCIS along with the compare version between 

08/24/2015 version and today, for subject rule.

Also note I am sending you the compare version of the RIA, between the 08/24/2015 submittal to 

you, and the final we completed today. 

Thank you.

Sharon Nizich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243-04)

RTP, NC 27711

(919) 541-2825 

<< E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060-AP69 RIA Final_Compare_2015 09 23.docx>>

<< E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060-AP69 Compare_20150923.docx>>

<< E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060-AP69_ROCIS Clean Copy 9 23 2015.docx>>
E.O. 12866_Brick & Clay 2060-AP69 RIA Final_2015081220150923

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and 

Structural Clay Products

NESHAP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

Air Economics Group

(MD-C339-01)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

July 2015

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

CONTACT INFORMATION

This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be 

addressed to Tom Walton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

(email: walton.tom@epa.gov). 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Personnel from RTI International and Kapur Energy Environmental Economics, LLC

contributed significant data, analysis, and writing to this document under contract number EP-W11-029. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

iii

CONTENTS

Section Page

Executive Summary....................................................................................................ES-1

1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background for the Final Rule............................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure................. 1-1

1.3 Organization of the Report................................................................................... 1-2

2 Profile of the Affected Industry.................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overview of Current Conditions.......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Supply .................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide? .............................. 2-2

2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply? ................................................. 2-3

2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices 

and the Quantity Supplied?...................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Demand................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.1 Who Uses Brick? ..................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand? ......................................... 2-5

2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the 

Quantity Demanded? ............................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry....................................................... 2-6

2.4.1 Market Definition..................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior.............................................................................. 2-7

2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies................................ 2-8

2.5 Market Data and Trends..................................................................................... 2-11

2.5.1 Market Prices......................................................................................... 2-20

2.6 References.......................................................................................................... 2-21
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

iv

3 Engineering Cost Analysis............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach ........................................ 3-1

3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device ................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Summary of Results............................................................................................. 3-6

4 Human Health Benefits of Emissions Reductions........................................................ 4-1

4.1 PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-benefits .......................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment....................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Economic Valuation................................................................................. 4-5

4.1.3 Benefit-per-Ton Estimates....................................................................... 4-7

4.1.4 PM2.5 Co-benefits Results........................................................................ 4-9

4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM2.5 Cobenefits..................................................................................................... 4-9

4.2 Energy Disbenefits............................................................................................. 4-18

4.2.1 Social Cost of Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Disbenefits....................... 4-19

4.3 Unquantified Benefits........................................................................................ 4-22

4.3.1 HAP Benefits......................................................................................... 4-24

4.3.2 Additional SO2 Health Co-benefits....................................................... 4-35

4.3.3 Visibility Impairment Co-benefits......................................................... 4-36

4.4 References.......................................................................................................... 4-37

5 Economic Impact Analysis........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Market Analysis................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Market-Level Results............................................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates............................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Employment Impacts of the Final Rule ............................................................... 5-6

5.2.1 Theory...................................................................................................... 5-6

5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer-Reviewed 

Literature................................................................................................ 5-11

5.2.3 Regulated Sector.................................................................................... 5-12

5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector........................................................... 5-13

5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts............................................................................ 5-13

5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects............................................. 5-14
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

v

5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation................................................. 5-14

5.2.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 5-15

5.3 Impacts on Small Entities.................................................................................. 5-16

5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis........................................... 5-16

5.3.2 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.................................................... 5-18

5.4 References.......................................................................................................... 5-24

6 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews....................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Synopsis............................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review............................. 6-1

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)......................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)........................................................................ 6-5

6.4.1 Need for the Rule..................................................................................... 6-5

6.4.2 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule.................................................. 6-5

6.4.3 Significant Issues Raised ......................................................................... 6-6

6.4.4 Small Business Administration Comments ............................................. 6-8

6.4.5 Affected Small Entities............................................................................ 6-9

6.4.6 Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements.......... 6-9

6.4.7 Significant Alternatives ......................................................................... 6-10

6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act....................................................................... 6-10

6.6 Executive Order 13132: Federalism .................................................................. 6-11

6.7 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments...................................................................................................... 6-11

6.8 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks........................................................................... 6-11

6.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.................................. 6-11

6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTAA) and ICFR 

Part 51 ................................................................................................................ 6-11

6.10.1 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations............. 6-12
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

vi

6.11 Congressional Review Act (CRA)..................................................................... 6-13

7 Comparison of Benefits and Costs................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Net Benefits of the Final Standards..................................................................... 7-1

Appendix

A Economic Model................................................................................................. A-1
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

2-1 Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327) ........................ 2-2

2-2 Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products......................................... 2-21

4-1 Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-benefits of Final Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 

2018............................................................................................................................. 4-13

4-2 Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline....................................................................................................................... 4-18

4-3 Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure 

in the Baseline............................................................................................................. 4-23

4-4 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint 

sources) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory................................................ 4-26

4-5 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint 

sources) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory................................................ 4-28
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

2-1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing) ............................................................................................................. 2-7

2-2. Market Share Statistics ................................................................................................. 2-8

2-3. Production Statistics by Census Region ....................................................................... 2-9

2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities.................................................... 2-10

2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricks): 

1993–2010................................................................................................................... 2-12

2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010................................................................................................................... 2-14

2-7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993–2010.... 2-17

2-8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010......... 2-20

2-9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and 

Facing: 2010................................................................................................................ 2-20

3-1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits............................................ 3-3

3-2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD) ........................................ 3-4

3-3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD).............. 3-5

3-4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD) .................... 3-8

4-1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5 ..................................................................... 4-3

4-2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2- Related Health Cobenefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$) .............. 4-10

4-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor 

SO2- Related Co-benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 ...................... 4-11

4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)........................................ 4-14

4-5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration 

Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studies............................................... 4-17

4-6. Emission Increases Associated with Secondary Energy Disbenefits (short tons 

per year) ...................................................................................................................... 4-18

4-7. Estimated Global Disbenefits of CO2 Increases in 2018 (million 2011$).................. 4-22

5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final BSCP NESHAP .................................................. 5-3

5-2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements................................................................. 5-15

5-3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates ......... 5-17
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

ix

7-1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 

2011$) ........................................................................................................................... 7-1
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 Background

The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is proposingrequiring that all major 

sources in Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing category meet health-based 

standards for acid gas hazardous air pollutants; maximum achievable control technology 

standards for mercury and non-mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (or particulate matter 

surrogate); and work practice standards, where applicable. The final rules would protect air 

quality and promote public health by reducing emissions of the hazardous air pollutants listed in 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act. As part of the regulatory process, EPA is required to perform 

economic analysis and the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) discusses the benefits and costs of 

the final rule.

ES.2 Results

For the final rule, the key results of the RIA follow:

■ Engineering Cost Analysis: EPA estimates the total annualized costs (2011$) for the 

final rule will be approximately $28 million.

■ Benefits Analysis: The EPA monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of 

morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5. In addition, 

EPA estimated the energy disbenefits associated with emissions from the control 

devices’ increased electricity usage. Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total 

monetized benefits of the final standards to be $83 million to $190 million. Using a 

7% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits to be $75 million to $170

million. Data, resource, and methodological limitations prevented EPA from 

monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits 

from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAPs each year for the final standards and 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In addition to 

reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would reduce several 

non-mercury HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium) each year.

■ Market Analysis and Closure Estimates: Market-level impacts include the price 

and production adjustments for bricks. The average national price under the final

standards increases by 1.8%, or $4.37 per 1,000 SBE, while overall domestic 

production falls by 1.5%, or 52 million bricks per year. Under the final standards, 

EPA estimated that two to four brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of 

closure.

■ Social Cost Analysis: Under the final standards, the economic model suggests that 

industries are able to pass on $15.1 million (2011$) of the rule’s costs to U.S. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

ES-2

households in the form of higher prices. Existing U.S. industries’ surplus falls by 

$12.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus loss is $27.2 million. 

■ Comparison of Benefits and Costs: The estimated monetized human health benefits 

outweigh the social costs. For the final standards, the net benefits are $56 million to 

$160 million at a 3% discount rate for the benefits and $48 million to $150 million at 

a 7% discount rate.

■ Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: As required by section 604 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (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 this 

report.

ES.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Section 1 

provides an introduction, and Section 2 presents the industry profile. Section 3 describes 

engineering cost analysis, and Section 4 presents the benefits analysis. Section 5 presents market, 

employment impact, social cost, and small business impact analyses. Section 6 addresses

statutory and Executive Order requirements, and Section 7 provides a summary of benefits and 

costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background for the Final Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. All 

major sources in these categories must meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards for mercury (Hg) and nonmercury (non-Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (or 

particulate matter [PM] surrogates); health-based standards for acid gas HAPs; and work practice 

standards, where applicable. The final rule, which has been informed by input from industry and 

other stakeholders including small businesses, protects air quality and promotes public health by 

reducing emissions of HAPs listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) examines the estimated costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the final

rule.

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action

1.2.1 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure

In general, regulatory intervention is required only when markets fail to allocate 

resources efficiently. For markets to allocate resources efficiently, both buyers and sellers must 

have access to full information about the transaction; there must be many buyers and sellers so 

that neither buyers nor sellers have power to control prices; and the market must impose all the 

social costs of the transaction on the buyers and sellers in the market. In some situations, 

however, these conditions do not occur, and markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. One 

such market failure occurs in cases where a production or consumption activity imposes an 

external cost on members of society who are neither buyers nor sellers in the market for the good 

or service produced. In cases of external costs, or “externalities,” some costs are imposed on 

members of society who are not part of the market. Because the market is not affected by these 

costs, it fails to account for these costs and thus does not allocate resources efficiently, and 

government must intervene to make the outcome more efficient. Environmental pollution that 

results from a production process is an example of an external cost borne by members of society 

who are neither producers nor consumers of the good whose production is generating the 

pollution.

In the case of bricks and structural clay products, manufacturing processes result in air 

emissions that impose external costs on individuals located near BSCP facilities who are exposed 

to the HAP emitted by the processes. Because these costs are borne by exposed individuals rather 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

1-2

than by the BSCP manufacturers, they are not considered by manufacturers in their production 

decisions. As a result, BSCP manufacturers produce more, and emit more pollutants, than they 

would if they bore the costs of the air pollution they generate. Because the market does not 

provide a signal that properly limits the quantity of air pollutants emitted by BSCP 

manufacturers, a market failure exists that requires EPA to promulgate air pollution standards to 

limit their emissions.

1.3 Organization of the Report

The remainder of this economic analysis is organized as follows:

■ Section 2 presents a profile of the bricks and structural clay products industry.

■ Section 3 describes the final rule and the estimated costs of complying with it.

■ Section 4 presents a qualitative discussion of the benefits of the final rule.

■ Section 5 describes the estimated economic impacts of the final rule.

■ Section 6 describes analyses EPA conducted to assess requirements of statutes and 

Executive Orders.

■ Section 7 presents EPA’s summary of benefits and costs.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-1

SECTION 2

PROFILE OF THE AFFECTED INDUSTRY

Residential and commercial construction activities rely on bricks and structural clay 

materials. Most bricks are used as primary and secondary exterior wall materials, while other 

structural clay products are used in plumbing systems and roofing applications. Because over 

80% of brick sales are associated with residential construction (Brick Industry Association, 

2013a), trends in the industry are influenced by trends in residential construction markets.

2.1 Overview of Current Conditions

To provide a general overview of current conditions in the affected industry, we used the 

U.S. government’s official measures reported in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), 

County Business Patterns, and Current Industrial Reports. Because the latest year of data (2011) 

differs from historical industry trends, it is unclear whether the industry without the final rule 

would be similar to the industry today. As a result, the profile provides information on a range of 

factors that may influence how the brick-related markets may evolve.

Federal statistical agencies classify business establishments in this industry using two 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:1

■ 327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing

■ 327123 Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing

In 2011, the value of products shipped in the two industries was approximately $1.1 

billion. Nearly all of the value was centered in NAICS 327121. The ASM reported that 218 

establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a 

total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a,b).

During 2011, approximately 3 to 4 billion Standard Brick Equivalents (S.B.E.)2 were 

produced by the industry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Federal Reserve data and industry surveys 

suggest the capacity utilization rate for the brick industry is below 50% (Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, 2013; Brick Industry Association, 2013b) (see Figure 2-1). The 

current observed conditions are influenced by the recent steep declines in the residential 

 1

In 2012, these industries were classified under NAICS 32710 Clay Building Material and Refractories 

Manufacturing. See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=327120&search=2012. 2

This is a common unit that accounts for various sizes of brick products. It measures 3-5/8′′ x 2-1/4′′” x 7-5/8′′.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-2

Figure 2-1. Capacity Utilization for Nonmetallic Mineral Products (NAICS 327)

Source: Federal Reserve Board, 2013

construction market. For example, 2011 new privately owned housing starts (608,800) units are 

well below levels observed in 2000 (1.6 million) and 1990 (1.2 million) (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2013c). Since 2010, new residential housing starts have begun to grow again, but levels are still 

much lower than the previous two decades. New privately owned housing starts in July 2013 

were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 852,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013d).

2.2 Supply

To better understand the markets for affected products, we considered the group of sellers 

that provide goods to the market and common factors that influence supply (e.g., input prices) 

and quantity of goods supplied (e.g., output prices).

2.2.1 What Types of Products Does the Industry Provide?

The U.S. Current Industrial Report provides descriptions of the types of clay construction 

goods supplied to U.S. and international markets. They include

■ brick (building or common and face);

■ structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed;

■ vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings; and
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-3

■ structural clay tile (except facing).

Bricks are the primary good produced in terms of value and physical quantities and 

include face brick, paving brick, building brick, and thin brick. Face brick accounts for over 90% 

of brick shipments.

2.2.2 What Factors Influence Market Supply?

The manufacturing process for brick and structural clay goods includes raw material 

processing (mining, grinding, screening, and blending) followed by forming, cutting, or shaping; 

drying; firing; cooling; and storage (U.S. EPA, 1997). Census data for NAICS 327121 Brick and 

Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing suggest that 70% of the product’s value is associated with 

value-added activities (i.e., labor and capital earnings). During the last 5 years, labor costs have 

remained flat in the nonmetallic mineral products sector. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

reports that average annual hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) of all employees was about 

$20 per hour (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a,b).

The value of intermediate goods used in these processes (i.e., raw materials like clay and 

shale) make up the remaining 30% of the industry’s total product value (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2013a). Intermediate production costs can be influenced by changes in raw clay material prices, 

but the prices of these materials have not fluctuated recently. Since 2008, common clay prices 

(primarily used in brick) have remained steady at $12 per ton. The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) notes that brick companies often consider sources of raw materials when considering 

purchasing other companies. For example, the Belden Brick Co. purchase of Lawrenceville 

Brick Inc. included Lawrenceville Brick’s clay reserves (USGS, 2011).

2.2.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Output Prices and the Quantity 

Supplied?

All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the 

price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks 

supplied responds to changes in the brick price.3 If manufacturers have a significant amount of 

flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks 

is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small 

amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over 

which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to 

 3

The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-4

adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors 

of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford (2002) developed an 

equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed 

factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two 

production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period4 and the other input that 

varies with production. 

Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × fixed factor value share

1− fixed factor value share .

To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 50% to

approximately match the non-labor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases 

where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity 

is 1 (a Cobb-Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor 

prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares. If we assume the elasticity of 

substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is

Supply Elasticity = 1 × 0.5

1 − 0.5 = 1.

Using these values for the fixed factor’s value share and elasticity of substitution, the 

supply elasticity is approximately one. This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick 

manufacturers would plan to sell 1% more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity 

utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how 

responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual 

supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 

2.3 Demand

Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) are primarily used in residential and 

commercial construction applications and are influenced by overall macroeconomic trends and 

conditions in the residential housing industry. Facing bricks are used in overall building 

structures (e.g., exterior walls), while clay pipe; structural clay tile; and drain, sewer, and roof 

tiles are used in elements of the building structure such as plumbing systems, fireplaces, and 

roofs. Because the vast majority of affected products are brick products and available data for 

other structural clay products are more limited, we focus on brick demand characteristics.

 4

The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include 

materials or labor.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-5

2.3.1 Who Uses Brick?

According to the Brick Industry Association, the vast majority of affected brick products 

are sold for residential end uses and nonresidential building uses (Brick Industry Association, 

2013b). The pattern of shipments varies by brick type: approximately half of the industry 

shipments go to dealers or distributors who sell the products to final consumers and the other half 

is sold directly to end users like construction companies (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). 

Over half of the shipments flow to two census regions (South Atlantic and West South Central), 

and Texas is the largest consumer of face brick and paver shipments (Brick Industry Association, 

2013b).

2.3.2 What Factors Influence the Market Demand?

BSCP have a variety of characteristics desirable in building materials. According to the 

Brick Industry Association, brick’s desirable attributes include its durability, flexibility, 

resistance to fire, weather, and pests; and little required maintenance. (Brick Industry 

Association, 2013a) A recent National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) survey of buyers 

of new homes found that “To get brick, respondents reported they would add $7,500 in 

additional costs” (NAHB, 2013).

2.3.2.1 Price of Related Goods

In exterior wall applications, vinyl siding, stone, stucco, wood, and fiber cement are 

substitute building materials. Historically, brick has maintained a 25% market share in the 

exterior wall application market (Brick Industry Association, 2013b). A recent NAHB survey 

found that “On a national level, respondents ranked brick highest at 34 percent, vinyl siding at 21 

percent, stone at 16 percent, stucco at 12 percent, wood at 7 percent and fiber cement at 5 

percent” (NAHB, 2013).

2.3.2.2 Income

Homeowners purchasing more expensive homes are more likely to choose brick 

exteriors. A recent NAHB survey found that “Ranked by price point [sale price of the home], 

brick topped other home exteriors in the $150,000–$499,000 range, while vinyl was preferred in 

the $150,000 or less range; brick ranked second to stone in the $500,000+ range with stucco 

following in third place” (NAHB, 2013). This suggests demand for brick exterior is likely 

influenced by income levels.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-6

2.3.3 What Factors Influence the Relationship Between Prices and the Quantity Demanded?

All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer BSCP when the price of the 

product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of the price response.5 Several 

factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If consumers can easily switch 

from one product to another because there are many close substitutes, demand tends to be more 

elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market definitions (king versus modular brick) 

and over longer time horizons for the consumption decision (months versus years).

Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities of demand for 

BSCP. However, economy-wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral 

industry demand elasticity is approximately −0.8, a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% decline 

in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008). Because the market definition for 

the product is broad, the price response for BSCP is likely more elastic than this value.

2.4 Firm Behavior and Organization of Industry

2.4.1 Market Definition

Market definition boundaries are commonly defined in two dimensions: product 

substitution and geography. Based on product substitution characteristics and available data, we 

rely on the Census definitions to define three groups of markets in which buyers are more likely 

to view products as substitutes:

■ Brick

– Brick (building or common and face)

■ Other Structural Clay Products

– Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including glazed and unglazed

– Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings

■ Other Clay Structural, Floor, and Wall Tile

– Structural clay tile (except facing)

Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high, relative to value. For this 

reason, bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of 

transportation across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small 

fraction of economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of 

 5

The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in 

price.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-7

nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2010).6 As shown in Table 2-1, approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are 

shipped in NAICS 327 is less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for 

bricks shows substantial differences between regions in the average price of brick products 

shipped. To the extent these price differences persist over time, these differences may be 

consistent with regional markets for brick.

Table 2-1. Distance Shipped Statistics: NAIC 327 (Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing)

Distance Shipped

2007 Value 

(million $) 

2007 Tons 

(thousands) Share of Total Tons

Total 124,713 1,060,926 ----

Less than 50 miles 53,721 796,412 75.1%

50–99 miles 12,351 82,342 7.8%

100–249 miles 21,760 113,384 10.7%

250–499 miles 15,117 39,645 3.7%

500–749 miles 8,495 16,040 1.5%

750–999 miles 4,872 6,039 0.6%

1,000–1,499 miles 3,790 4,722 0.4%

1,500–2,000 miles 2,364 1,344 0.1%

More than 2,000 miles 2,246 998 0.1%

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). Table 15.

2.4.2 Firm Pricing Behavior

Economists have developed a system for grouping markets that helps describe the pricing 

behavior of firms. At one end of the spectrum, firms have little control over pricing for their 

products. Put another way, firms are price takers, and price is determined by supply and demand 

conditions. This basic model is more likely to hold when the industry has a large number of 

sellers, goods are identical, and barriers for entry and exit (laws, high capital requirements, or 

patents) are low. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a single firm that searches for the 

price-output combination that maximizes its profit. This basic model is more likely to hold when 

there are significant barriers to entry (industries with economies of scale or ownership of a 

patent).

 6

The data include other products such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay 

products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-8

When markets have a small number of firms selling identical products, firms may not 

necessarily be price takers; instead, they may be able to determine their price while considering 

how competitors may respond to their own decisions. To assess the extent to which affected 

markets may be concentrated among a small number of sellers, we compiled and estimated 

national and regional market share statistics using historical kiln survey data. Across the United 

States, a large number of companies (50 companies) own and operate over 200 kilns. The largest 

U.S. market share for a U.S. company is low (about 16%). This is consistent with the latest 5-

year Census statistics describing U.S. concentration at the 6-digit NAICS code level, which 

found that both affected industries are well below levels that government agencies consider 

moderately concentrated (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013e).

As Table 2-2 indicates, looking within regions, the New England region has only two 

operating companies, while the South Atlantic region has 17. In several Census regions, a single 

parent company accounts for a majority of estimated regional production. To the extent that 

brick product markets are defined at the regional level versus national level, the price-taking 

model of firm decisions may not describe business decisions as well as other economic models 

of pricing behavior.

Table 2-2. Market Share Statistics

Census Region Number of Companies

Maximum Company 

Share of Region 

Production

East North Central 12 38%

East South Central 9 49%

Mid-Atlantic 5 66%

Mountain 6 50%

New England 2 NA

Pacific 4 40%

South Atlantic 17 27%

West North Central 9 31%

West South Central 5 52%

Source: U.S. EPA estimates and calculations.

2.4.3 Affected Facilities and Ultimate Parent Companies

Based on historical kiln inventory survey data, over 13 million tons of BSCP are 

produced by the industry, which includes over 200 major and area source kilns. EPA has 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-9

identified 44 ultimate parent companies with facilities that will need new or modified control 

devices to meet new emission standards. The companies own 85 facilities and operate 168 kilns

(see Table 2-3). The South Atlantic region accounts for a significant share of existing production 

capacity; 23 facilities and 53 kilns are operated in this region.

Table 2-3. Production Statistics by Census Region 

Census Region

Total S.B.E 

Shipped in 2010

(1000s)

Number of 

Affected Kilns

Number of 

Affected 

Facilities

Estimated Affected 

Production Share 

within Region

East North Central 285,508 29 11 81%

East South Central 388,685 28 14 100%

Mid-Atlantic 213,583 8 5 69%

Mountain 114,154 4 3 50%

New England 37,034 0 0 0%

Pacific 74,563 6 4 85%

South Atlantic 1,307,601 53 23 92%

West North Central 183,247 15 11 100%

West South Central 891,232 25 14 100%

United States 3,495,607 168 85 90%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations.

2.4.3.1 Small Businesses

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires federal departments and agencies to evaluate if 

and/or how their regulations affect small business entities. Specifically, the Agency must 

determine if a regulation is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The business is defined as the owner company, rather than the 

facility; the size of the owner company determines the resources it has available to comply with 

the rule.

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories 

Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry, and the Small Business Administration (SBA) (2013)

defines a small business as having fewer than 750 employees. There are 36 parent companies 

that are small businesses (see Table 2-4).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-10

Table 2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities

Company ICR NAICS

Affected 

Facilities

Affected 

Kilns

Sales 

(million $) Employment Small

Acme Brick Company 327121 11 19 260.1 2,602 No

American Eagle Brick Co. 327121 1 1 NA NA Yes

Belden Brick Company 327121 2 11 87.5 751 No

Brampton Brick, Ltd. 327121 1 NA NA <750 Yes

Boral Bricks Inc. 327121 11 20 3,922.0 14,740 No

Certainteed Corporation 327123 1 1 1,330.8 Over 10,000 No

Cherokee Brick & Tile Co. 327121 1 4 43.5 175 Yes

Columbus Brick Co. 327121 1 3 4.9 50 Yes

Commercial Brick Corp. 327121 1 3 17.5 175 Yes

Continental Brick Co. 327121 1 2 15.0 75 Yes

Elgin-Butler Brick Co. 327122 1 2 2.7 30 Yes

Endicott Clay Products Co. 327122 1 3 23.4 180 Yes

General Finance, Inc. 327121 1 1 212.2 229 Yes

General Shale Brick, Inc. 327121 7 16 285.4 1,900 No

Glen Gery 327121 6 10 83.3 N/A No

Hanson Brick East, LLC 327121 8 12 51.2 1,021 No

Hebron Brick Company 327121 1 1 NA 55 Yes

Henry Brick Company, Inc. 327121 1 2 5.3 60 Yes

International Chimney Corp. 327121 1 1 27.9 250 Yes

Ironrock Capital (formerly 

Metropolitan Ceramics, Inc.) 327122 1 4 NA 175 Yes

Kansas Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 1 3.5 35 Yes

Kasten Clay Products Co. 327121 1 1 3.8 42 Yes

L.P. McNear Brick Co, Inc. 327121 1 1 11.0 75 Yes

Lee Brick and Tile Co. 327121 1 4 35.0 175 Yes

Logan Clay Products 327123 0 0 13.5 175 Yes

Marion Ceramics, Inc. 327123 1 1 5.3 75 Yes

McAvoy Brick Co. 327121 1 1 1.8 7 Yes

Mohawk Industries 327122 2 5 5,788.0 NA No

Mutual Materials Co. 327121 & 327123 2 2 7.5 35 Yes

Old Virginia Brick Co. 327121 2 3 22.1 175 Yes

(continued)
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-11

Table 2-4. Ultimate Parent Companies for Affected Facilities (continued)

Company ICR NAICS

Affected 

Facilities

Affected 

Kilns

Sales 

(Million $) Employment Small

Pacific Clay Products 327121 1 3 27.2 175 Yes

Pine Hall Brick Co., Inc. 327121 1 6 30.2 35 Yes

Ragland Clay Products, LLC 327121 1 1 1.9 35 Yes

Richards Brick Co. 327121 1 2 18.1 75 Yes

Sioux City Brick and Tile Co. 327121 2 3 7.5 35 Yes

Statesville Brick Co. 327121 1 2 35.0 175 Yes

Summit Pressed Brick and Tile 

Co. 327121 1 1 8.5 75 Yes

Summitville Tiles, Inc. 327122 1 4 300.0 175 Yes

Superior Clay Corp. 327121 0 0 7.4 75 Yes

The Stiles & Hart Brick Company 327121 0 0 4.8 44 Yes

Triangle Brick 327121 2 5 29.8 203 Yes

Watsontown Brick Co. 327121 1 2 4.1 35 Yes

Whitacre Greer 327121 1 2 8.7 75 Yes

Yankee Hill Brick and Tile 327121 1 1 NA 75 Yes

NA = No annual sales data

Sources: Data on total number of ultimate parent company employees and annual sales were gathered from 

Hoover’s, Manta, and company Web sites.

2.5 Market Data and Trends

This section presents historical market data for select bricks and structural clay products.

Historical market data include U.S. volumes for manufacturers’ shipments,7 foreign trade, and 

apparent consumption. Data were obtained from various years of Current Industrial Reports 

published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 2-5 provides data for common, building, and 

face bricks, while Table 2-6 presents data for structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, 

including unglazed and glazed, and vitrified clay and sewer pipe. Table 2-7 focuses on structural 

clay tile (except facing), and Table 2-8 is for clay floor and wall tile.

 7

The source reports list both shipment and production quantities. Here we have chosen shipment quantities over 

production quantities, even though these do not differ by much in each year or show different trends over time. 

The reason to choose shipment numbers over production numbers is that shipment quantity is the number that is 

relevant for final consumption. In fact, when the data source reports calculate “apparent consumption,” they use 

shipment numbers, not production numbers.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-12

Table 2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993–

2010

Year

Shipment of 

Bricksb Exports Imports

Apparent 

Consumptionb

1993 6,655,400 42,643 10,170 6,622,927

1994 7,237,982 43,733 8,967 7,203,216

1995 6,890,321 43,627 16,867 6,863,561

1996 7,619,279 42,759 20,629 7,597,149

1997 7,732,971 46,518 20,267 7,706,720

1998 8,241,086 40,631 18,243 8,218,698

1999 8,931,700 34,171 24,920 8,922,449

2000 8,616,784 30,712 47,472 8,633,544

2001 7,941,432 30,547 27,579 7,938,464

2002 7,986,393 37,135 25,164 7,974,422

2003 8,519,678 46,286 20,807 8,494,199

2004 9,388,648 75,297 33,436 9,346,787

2005 9,418,759 52,008 49,432 9,416,183

2006 8,899,594 36,421 75,717 8,938,890

2007 7,237,176 40,613 70,914 7,267,477

2008 5,053,935 47,898 97,739 5,103,776

2009 3,585,481 37,640d,f 74,479e,f 3,622,320

2010 3,495,657 37,532d,f 79,054e,f 3,537,179

Note: This table presents data for brick (building or common and face), which, by the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with 

NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing.

a Bricks are 2 1/4′′ by 3 5/8′′ by 7 5/8′′ brick equivalent.

b This represents shipment quantity of bricks. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the “definitions” Web page 

for Current Industrial Reports at Census Bureau’s Web site (http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html). 

The relevant item is “quantity and value of shipments.” The figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical 

shipments of all products sold, transferred to other establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether 

for domestic or export sale. The value represents the net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the 

products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight charges, and returns. Shipments to a company’s own branches are 

assigned the same value as comparable appropriate allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold 

without further manufacture are excluded.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Bricks − Exports + Imports

d The export data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The export 

numbers seem to have the same pattern as shipment numbers. In particular, during 2001–2002 and 2007–2008 when brick 

shipment numbers were low, brick export numbers were also low. So we have estimated the numbers for 2009 and 2010 based 

on the regression exports = a + b*shipments, using 1993 to 2008 data. Another source of information for estimating export 

quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. 

However, because we lack reliable data on export prices for those years, we do not estimate the quantities of exports for 2009 

and 2010 from the values data.

(continued)
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-13

Table 2-5. Historical Data for Brick (Building or Common and Face) (103 bricksa): 1993–

2010 (continued)

e The import data were not available for 2009 and 2010. The numbers here are estimates based on past trends. The import 

numbers do not seem to be correlated with shipment numbers. For example, during 2001–2002 and 2007–2008 when brick 

shipment numbers were low, brick import numbers were not that low. In fact, plotting the numbers suggests that imports show 

an increasing trend since 1993. So we have extrapolated to estimate the numbers for 2009 and 2010 assuming a linear trend 

beginning in the year 1993. We fond imports to be lower in 2009 and 2010 compared with 2008, because the linear trend starts 

in 1993, and the unusually high 2008 number is only an outlier outside this trend. Another source of information for estimating 

import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are 

available. The value of imports drops approximately 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack data on import prices 

for those years, we did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

f Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and 

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for 

shipment. So with the latter information, we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the 

export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, 

and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically 

different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and 

import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (47,775 for 2009 and 65,099 for 

2010) and import quantities (26,069 for 2009 and 23,956 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite 

different from past-year trends. So we decided to opt for the regression method of estimation.

g As previous notes indicate, export and import numbers for 2009 and 2010 are estimates. So the annual growth rates are 

computed for both 1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

As shown in Table 2-5, the brick market shows declines in the quantity of shipments and 

apparent consumption between 1993 and 2010 with a marked decreases during the recessions 

beginning in 2007. An examination of the data during the time period 1993 to 2010 shows that 

brick shipment and apparent consumption increased during some years and decreased during 

other years. However, because of the steep declines beginning in 2007, 2010 values are only 

about 53% of 1993 values. Brick shipments steadily increased from about 6.6 billion bricks in 

1993 to 8.6 billion bricks in 2000, dropped somewhat in 2001 and remained below the 2000 level 

until 2003, and rose again in 2004 and 2005 before beginning a steady decline starting in 2006.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-14

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010

Year

Shipments of Select 

Structural Clay 

Productsa Exportsb Importsb

Apparent 

Consumptionc

1993 193,500 287 648 193,861

1994 188,039 3,187 915 185,767

1995 183,967 1,543 388 182,812

1996 204,908 1,610 345 203,643

1997 218,013 1,334 888 217,568

1998 207,815 2,291 291 205,815

1999 231,876 1,176 389 231,089

2000 217,448 2,092 346 215,702

2001 216,685 1,219 220 215,686

2002 177,558 1,583 607 176,582

2003 177,620 1,258 374 176,736

2004 210,981 1,473 915 210,423

2005 258,393 1,218 526 257,701

2006 219,911 1,041 341 219,211

2007 195,064 1,102 536 194,497

2008 132,181 1,164 463 131,480

2009 98,439d 1,138e,g 512f,g 97,813h

2010 73,183d 1,098e,g 512f,g 72,597h

Note: This table presents data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed, which, according to 

the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing, and 

vitrified clay and sewer pipe, which, according to the 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with NAICS 327123, Other 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing. According to our communication with Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau, in all 

the Table 1s in the Current Industrial Reports, the category listed as “Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick”

should in fact be “Structural facing tile and ceramic glazed brick, including unglazed and salt glazed.” The Current 

Industrial Reports since 1998 omitted the phrase “including unglazed and salt glazed” and only mentioned structural 

facing tile and ceramic glazed brick. 

Calculation rules used when computing numbers from the Industrial reports for this table are 1 million brick equivalent = 

2,000 short tons and 1 metric ton = 1.10231131 short ton. The source for the first formula is 

http://midlandbrick.wikidot.com/standard-brick-equivalent, which says that 1 standard brick equivalent is equal to a 4 

pound brick. Because 1 short ton is equal to 2,000 pounds, this implies the conversion ratio used here.

(continued)
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-15

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010 (continued)

a This represents shipment quantity of select structural clay products. The definition of value of shipments can be found on the 

“definitions” Web page for Current Industrial Reports at the Census Bureau’s Web site 

(http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/definitions/index.html). The relevant item is quantity and value of shipments. The 

figures on quantity and value of shipments represent physical shipments of all products sold, transferred to other 

establishments of the same company, or shipped on consignment, whether for domestic or export sale. The value represents the 

net sales price, f.o.b. plant, to the customer or branch to which the products are shipped, net of discounts, allowances, freight 

charges, and returns. Shipments to a company’s own branches are assigned the same value as comparable appropriate 

allocation of company overhead and profit. Products bought and resold without further manufacture are excluded.

b For export and import numbers between 1998 and 2008, the export and import data for facing tile and ceramic glazed brick 

including unglazed and salt glazed are not available in the source reports (marked as (X) in the source reports), so the export 

and import numbers are computed with vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings data only.

c Apparent Consumption = Shipments of Select SCP − Exports + Imports

d Readers should interpret these numbers carefully. For the 2009 and 2010 shipment numbers, the shipment data for facing tile 

and ceramic glazed brick are not available in the source report and are marked as “(S).” “(S)” means that the numbers did not 

meet publication standards. We talked to Casey Bretz at the Census Bureau and learned that these numbers involved over 50% 

of imputation, which is the reason they were not published. However, these imputed numbers were available upon our request, 

and the 2009–2010 shipment numbers in this table were calculated using these numbers for facing tile and ceramic glazed 

brick including unglazed and salt glazed. Numbers for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are available in the source reports.

e Because the export quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers for 

2009 and 2010 are estimates for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings exports. The export numbers for vitrified clays do not 

seem to be correlated to shipment numbers. In particular, during the 2002–2003 and 2007–2008 recessions when shipment 

numbers are low, the vitrified clay export numbers are not low. Further, plotting the numbers suggests that the exports have 

decreased over time and exhibit smaller fluctuations over time since 1993. So we have extrapolated the numbers for 2009 and 

2010 assuming a linear trend beginning in the year 1993. Another source of information for estimating export quantities is that, 

in the Current Industrial Reports, the values of exports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. However, because 

we lack reliable data on export prices, we do not estimate quantities of exports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

f Because import quantity data for vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings are not available for 2009 and 2010, the numbers here

are based on estimates. The import numbers do not seem to have the same pattern as the shipment numbers. In particular, 

during 2002–2003 and 2007–2008 when shipment numbers were obviously low, the import numbers were not. Plotting the 

numbers suggests that imports of structural clay products have fluctuated widely. So we simply set these numbers at their 

historical average. Another source of information for estimating import quantities is that, in the Current Industrial Reports, the 

values of imports for all years, including 2009 and 2010, are available. Similar to bricks, the value of imports for vitrified clay 

sewer pipe and fittings dropped by about 50% from 2008 to 2009. However, because we lack reliable data on import prices, we 

did not estimate the quantities of imports for 2009 and 2010 from these values.

g Another method we tried for computing export and import quantities was based on the observation that although for 2009 and 

2010 the industrial reports only list export and import values and not quantities, they do report both quantities and values for 

shipment. So with the latter information we were able to compute the unit price for shipments and then use that to get the 

export and import quantities. We explored any systematic differences in the unit price for shipments, the unit price for exports, 

and the unit price for imports. We looked at industrial reports before 2009 to find out whether the unit prices are systematically 

different and adjusted for those differences. We then divided the export and import values for 2009 and 2010 by the export and 

import unit prices to obtain the export and import quantities. However, the export quantities (725 for 2009 and 1,346 for 2010) 

and import quantities (206 for 2009 and 206 for 2010) we obtained as a result of this method seemed to be quite different from 

past-year trends. So we used the regression method of estimation for exports and historical average method for imports.

h These are based on estimates. Please see notes e, f, and g.

i As previous notes suggest, data for 2009 and 2010 are based on estimates. So the annual growth rates were computed for both 

1993 to 2008 and 1993 to 2010.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2006.

(continued)
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-16

Table 2-6. Historical Data for Facing Tile and Ceramic Glazed Brick (Including Unglazed 

and Salt Glazed) and Vitrified Clay Sewer Pipe and Fittings (short tons): 

1993–2010 (continued)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2001.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1994.

Both exports and imports of bricks increased between 1993 and 2008. The largest quantity 

of brick exports are to Canada (approximately 78% in 2010) (U.S. International Trade Commission 

[USITC], 2013). The largest quantities of brick and structural clay imports are from Germany 

(40% in 2010) and Mexico (37% in 2010)8 (USITC, 2013). The average annual growth rate for 

exports was 3.16% during this time period. The growth rate for imports was much larger at 

22.61%. In 1993, imports were about 10 million and jumped to 98 million by 2010, with 

significant increases happening in 1995, 2000, 2006, and 2008. This difference between brick 

export and import growth rates is also evident if we examine exports and imports as proportions of 

shipments instead of their levels. Exports started at 0.64% of shipments in the year 1993 but had 

dropped to 0.41% by 2006. Imports started at 0.15% of shipments in 1993 but rose to 0.85% of 

shipments in 2006. After 2006, both these ratios rose. By 2010, exports and imports as a 

percentage of shipments rose to 1.07% and 2.26%, respectively. But the rises since 2006 were 

driven more by decreases in shipments, rather than by changes in the levels of exports and imports.

 8

Although these two countries typically are the largest source of imports, the country shares vary from year to year. 

For example, in 2012, Germany and Mexico again accounted for more than 65% of imports, but Mexico 

represented 40% and Germany accounted for 24%.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-17

Table 2-7. Historical Data for Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing) (short tons): 1993–

2010

Year Shipments of Structural Clay Tile (Except Facing)

1993 (D)

1994 (D)

1995 53,727

1996 50,990

1997 49,729

1998 49,098

1999 47,156

2000 47,009

2001 49,453

2002 49,563

2003 40,330

2004 40,050

2005 47,704

2006 37,491

2007 35,477

2008 23,410

2009 16,749

2010 12,140

Average Annual Growth Rates

1995–2010 −8.31%

Note: This table presents data for structural clay tile (except facing), which, by 2007 NAICS definition, is associated with 

NAICS 327121, Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing. Unlike Table 2-7 and Table 2-8, this table does not 

show exports, imports, or apparent consumption, because the export and import data for structural clay tile (except 

facing) are not available (marked as (X) in the source reports). “(D)” means that the number is “withheld to avoid 

disclosing data of individual companies” in the source report.

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2008

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2006

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2004

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2003

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2002

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 2001

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1999

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1998

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995. Current Industrial Reports for Clay Construction Products—

Summary 1994.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-18

The market for other structural clay products is much smaller than the brick market, but it 

still represents an important sector of the BSCP industry. As Table 2-6 shows, both shipments 

and apparent consumption of structural clay products in 2010 were less than 38% of 1993 values. 

Similar to the trend in the brick market, structural clay product shipments exhibited a steady 

increase from 194 thousand short tons in 1993 to 232 thousand short tons in 1999, dropped 

somewhat during the recession in 2002 and 2003, rose between 2003 and 2006, and began a 

steady decline starting in 2007.

Although structural clay product shipments and consumption declined over the time 

period 1993 to 2008, the average annual growth rate of exports was high at 67.42%. Although 

this growth rate looks large, it is relatively small in absolute terms. This high average growth rate 

is largely due to a substantial increase in exports of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings from 1993 to 

1994. In 1993, 287 short tons of vitrified sewer pipe and fittings were exported from the United 

States, and in 1994, this number rose dramatically to 3,187 short tons. Since 1995, exports have 

mostly stayed between 1,000 and 2,000 short tons. Imports of structural clay products are small, 

never exceeding a thousand short tons in any year between 1993 and 2008.

The shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) are even smaller than other structural 

clay products (which are presented in Table 2-6). As Table 2-7 shows, the average annual growth 

rate of shipments of structural clay tile (except facing) is approximately −8.3% for the years 

1995 to 2010. More specifically, the shipments exhibit a steady decrease from 54 thousand short 

tons in 1995 to 35 thousand short tons in 2007, during which period the average annual growth

rate is only −2.9%. Then in the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, the shipment levels dropped sharply 

by 34.0%, 28.5%, and 27.5%, respectively.

As the data in Tables 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 show, the quantities of all BSCP experienced 

declines starting in 2007, the year the recent economic crisis set in, and continued to decline 

post-crisis. The data show that shipment levels had recovered after the 2002–2003 recession and 

held steady for the years prior to 2007. The decline since 2007 also appears to be due to the 

2007–2008 recession rather than to structural changes within the industry. We expect the 

industry to come back to its prerecession levels in the future. This is supported by the fact that 

shipment levels for all BSCP were low during 2001–2003, when the early 2000s recession 

happened in the United States and the European Union. However, these shipment levels bounced 

back after the recession. This prediction is also supported by the recent annual reports of large 

companies producing these products. For example, the annual reports of large companies such as 

Boral Limited and Saint-Gobain show them recovering after exhibiting declines during the 

recession.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-19

Boral Limited is an international building and construction materials group headquartered 

in Australia, and its U.S. operations manufacture clay bricks, concrete, and clay roof tiles and 

manufactured stone veneer for residential and mid-rise commercial buildings.9 The 2012 annual 

report of Boral Limited compares U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A.’s earnings before interest 

and taxes (EBIT) during the years 2006–2012 and finds them to be highly correlated (Boral 

Limited, 2012). Both the numbers for U.S. housing starts and Boral U.S.A.’s EBIT in the United 

States declined simultaneously between 2006 and 2011 but rose in 2012. U.S. housing starts 

went from 2,030 thousand in fiscal year 2006 to 570 thousand in fiscal year 2011, and Boral 

U.S.A.’s EBIT declined to −$99 million in 2011 from $139 million in 2006. Boral U.S.A.’s 

EBIT rose to −$87 million in fiscal year 2012 when U.S. housing starts increased to 685 

thousand.

Saint-Gobain S.A, which produces construction products marketed in the United States 

under the CertainTeed brand, is a Europe-based multinational company and does not provide its 

U.S. operations data separately. However, its overall data exhibit synchronization with the 

economic cycles. Its net sales declined from 30,274 million euros in 2002 (Saint-Gobain, 2003; 

2013) to 29,590 million euros in 2003, showed a steady recovery after that to 43,800 million 

euros in 2008, declined in 2009 to 37,786 million euros, and then recovered in 2011 and 2012 to 

42,116 million euros and 43,198 million euros, respectively (Saint-Gobain, 2013).

Although their annual reports do not provide data on quantities in shipment, production,

or exports as the Current Industrial Reports do, the recent trends in the financial performance of 

these large companies, in particular the profit and sales data, support that this industry will 

improve as the effects of the recession recede and the building and construction industry revives.

In addition, our prediction that the BSCP industry is only experiencing a temporary 

setback and will come back to prerecession levels is supported by existing reports for the clay 

and shale industry, which is upstream of the BSCP industry. Put another way, raw materials 

typically used in manufacturing BSCP include common clay and shale (Midwest Research 

Institute, 2001). A recent advance report published in 2013 by the U.S. Department of the 

Interior and USGS suggests that once statistical data become available, the country may see a 

moderate growth in common clay sales in 2012 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2013). In their 

 9

This information is from the company’s Web site, http://www.boral.com. According to the Web site, Boral’s 

operations include the largest brick manufacturer and the largest clay tile manufacturer in the United States; 

through the 50% owned MonierLifetile, it is also the largest concrete roof tile manufacturer in the United States.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-20

analysis, the factors supporting the growth are the increases in housing starts and construction 

spending for commercial buildings similar to what is evident from the Boral USA example.

2.5.1 Market Prices

Average prices for brick and structural products vary by product type and over time. In 

2010, the average price of brick was approximately $248 per 1,000 S.B.E., clay floor and wall 

tile was approximately $1.30 per square foot, and vitrified clay sewer pipe and fitting were $496 

per short ton (Table 2-8). There is substantial variation in average brick prices across Census 

regions ($183 to $541), as shown in Table 2-9. Since 2005, average nominal prices for bricks 

and clay floor and wall tile have remained flat or fallen (Figure 2-2), while average nominal 

prices for other structural clay products have risen to higher levels.

Table 2-8. Average Price of Principal Brick and Structural Clay Products Shipped: 2010

Product Average Price Units

Brick, building or common and facing $248 $ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Vitrified clay sewer pipe and fittings $496 $ per short ton

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Table 2-9. Regional Variation in Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and 

Facing: 2010

Census Region $ per 1,000 S.B.E.

New England $379

Middle Atlantic $324

East North Central $297

West North Central $272

South Atlantic $227

East South Central $183

West South Central $225

Mountain $355

Pacific $541

United States $248

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-21

Figure 2-2. Real Price Trends for Brick and Structural Clay Products

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Labor Statistics, 2013a,b

2.6 References

Boral Limited. 2012. Annual Report 2012. 

http://www.boral.com.au/Images/common/pdfs/annual-reports/Boral-Annual-Report2012.pdf.

Brick Industry Association. 2013a. An Overview of the American Brick 

Industry. http://www.gobrick.com/resources/americanbrickindustry/tabid/7644/default.as

px (accessed on August 16, 2013).

Brick Industry Association. 2013b. 2012 Brick Industry Annual Report. Version 4.0.

Federal Reserve Board. 2013. Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization—

G.17. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ (August 16, 2013).

Ho, M., R. Morgenstern, J. Shih. 2008. Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry. 

Resources for the Future Discussion Paper DP 08-37. 

http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-08-37.pdf.

Midwest Research Institute. 2001. Industry Characterization for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-22

Mohawk Industries, Inc. 2012. 2011 Annual Report. http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTMzMjE1fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZ

T0z&t=1.

National Association of Homebuilders. 2013. NAHB Study Reveals What Home Buyers Really 

Want. February 19, 2013.

Rutherford, T.F. 2002. Lecture Notes on Constant Elasticity Functions. 

http://www.gamsworld.eu/mpsge/debreu/ces.pdf.

Saint-Gobain. 2003 Annual Report 2002. http://www.saintgobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2002_EN.pdf.

Saint-Gobain. 2013. Registration Document 2012. http://www.saintgobain.com/files/Rapport_annuel_2012_EN.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013a. Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current 

Employment Statistics survey (National) Series ID: CEU3132700003.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013b. Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers Series ID: 

CUUR0000SA0.

U.S. Census Bureau 2013a. Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for 

Industry Groups and Industries: 2011 and 2010; generated by RTI International; using 

American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013b. Geography Area Series: County Business Patterns: 2011; generated 

by RTI International; using American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov. (August 

16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013c. Historical New Residential Construction Started. 

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/historical_data/. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013d. New Residential Construction Press Release. August 16, 2013. 

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/. (August 16, 2013).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013e. Manufacturing: Subject Series: Concentration Ratios: Share of 

Value of Shipments Accounted for by the 4, 8, 20, and 50 Largest Companies for 

Industries: 2007; generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder. 

http://factfinder2.census.gov. (September 12, 2013).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2011: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2009: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2008.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-23

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2007: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2006.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2003: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2002.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 2001.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1997.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1996. Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products; Summary, 1995.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1995: Current Industrial Reports for Clay 

Construction Products—Summary 1994.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. May 2013. 2011 Minerals Yearbook, 

Clay and Shale [Advance Release].

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1-2011-clays.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. 2007 Commodity 

Flow Survey United States. Table 15. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/commodity_flow_surv

ey/final_tables_december_2009/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, 

Section 11.3, “Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing: Final Report.”

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s03.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Minerals Yearbook: Clay and Shale. Written by R. L. Virta. 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/clays/myb1-2011-clays.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2-24

U.S. International Trade Commission. Interactive Trade and DataWeb. U.S. Imports for 

Consumption and U.S. Domestic Exports, NAICS 327121. (December 31, 

2013). http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, then search for NAICS 327121.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 2013. Table of Small Business Size Standards.

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/size_table_07222013.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-1

SECTION 3

ENGINEERING COST ANALYSIS

Production of BSCP results in emissions of pollutants such as hydrogen fluoride (HF), 

hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine (Cl2), mercury (Hg), and non-Hg hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) metals from the kilns used in the production process. To control these emissions, EPA has 

developed emission standards for these HAPs under the authority of Section 112 of the CAA.

This section explains how the estimates of compliance costs associated with this regulation were

developed, and it is organized as follows:

■ Section 3.1, Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach: This section 

describes the regulatory approaches considered in this analysis and presents the 

annual cost for each of the compliance options and the various regions of the country.

It also describes the air pollution control devices (APCDs) and the pollutants targeted 

because they are key to understanding how the annual costs were obtained.

■ Section 3.2, Summary of Costs by Control Device: There are various APCD 

implementation options to meet the compliance requirements. This section presents 

the overall capital and annual costs for those implementation options. It also provides 

key considerations for how the costs were derived. 

3.1 Summary of National Costs by Regulatory Approach

EPA evaluated costs for affected BSCP facilities under twothree regulatory approaches:

■ Option 1 (Proposed Rule): 

– Acid gases: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice.

– Hg: Choice of MACT limit for Hg in lb/ton or, concentration, and a choiceor 

lb/hr.

■– PM/total non-Hg HAP metals: Choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf 

(calculated based on data from kilns with fabric filter-based APCD, up to 12 

percent of the kilns in the industry) or non-Hg HAP metals in lb/hr for all kilns.

■ Option 2 Final Rule: 

– Acid gases: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice.

– Hg: Choice of MACT limit, with consideration of raw material variability, for Hg 

in lb/ton or, concentration, and a choiceor lb/hr.

■– PM/total non-Hg HAP metals: Choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf 

or non-Hg HAP metals lb/hr for small and large kilns. (calculated based on 12 

percent of the data in the subcategory).

Formatted: bullets-2nd level

Formatted: bullets-2nd level
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-2

■ Option 3 (Final Rule but without size subcategories for PM/total non-Hg HAP 

metals):

– Acid gases: Meet HBS for acid gases, choice.

– Hg: Choice of MACT limit, with consideration of raw material variability, for Hg 

in lb/ton or, concentration, and a choiceor lb/hr.

■– PM/total non-Hg HAP metals: Choice of MACT limits for PM in lb/ton or gr/dscf 

or non-Hg HAP metals lb/hr for all kilns. (calculated based on 12 percent of the 

data in the industry).

All approaches have separate Hg numeric limits for large and small kilns, and the HBS 

applies to all kilns at the facility for all compliance options. All approaches assume the 

facility would choose to become a Synthetic Area (SA) by installing dry limestone adsorbers 

(DLAs) on uncontrolled kilns if that is less expensive than installing the control needed to 

comply with the compliance option. All approaches have separate Hg numeric limits for 

large and small kilns, and the HBS applies to all kilns at the facility for all compliance 

options.

These costs include the implementation of various APCDs. The following are the APCDs 

considered:

■ Dry injection fabric filter (DIFF). DIFFs are used to remove HF, HCl, Cl2, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and PM. They work by injecting hydrated lime (a dry lime powder) 

into the kiln exhaust. The lime and kiln exhaust mix in a reaction chamber or an 

exhaust duct and are ducted to a fabric filter. The lime reacts with and removes HF, 

HCl, Cl2, and SO2 from the exhaust stream.

■ Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF). DLS/FFs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl2, 

SO2, and PM emissions. These systems mix hydrated lime and water in a 

conditioning drum and then inject the lime/water slurry into a reaction chamber, 

where the slurry mixes with the kiln exhaust. Acid gas removal takes place in the 

reaction chamber, subsequent ductwork, and across the lime-caked fabric filter bags. 

From the reaction chamber, the exhaust stream is ducted to a fabric filter for PM 

removal.

■ Dry limestone adsorber (DLA). DLAs are used to control HF, HCl, Cl2, and SO2

emissions. Limestone is fed into the top of a reaction chamber countercurrent to the 

kiln exhaust gases. The limestone cascades through multiple baffles within the 

chamber and reacts with and removes HF and, to a lesser degree, HCl, Cl2 and SO2

from the kiln exhaust. The system does not provide a mechanism for controlling PM.

■ Fabric filter (FF). FFs are used to control PM emissions. Most FFs use long, 

cylindrical bags made of a woven material that acts as a filter medium. Gas enters the 

FF and is drawn through the bags, and PM accumulates in layers on the surface of the 

Formatted: bullets-2nd level
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-3

filter media until gas can no longer move through the bag. When the system reaches a 

sufficient pressure drop due to PM build-up, the bag will be cleaned. The system does 

not provide a mechanism for controlling Hg, HCl, Cl2, or SO2.

■ Activated carbon injection (ACI). An ACI system would pneumatically inject 

activated carbon into the flue gas ductwork of a kiln. The activated carbon adsorbs 

the vaporized mercury from the flue gas and is then collected with the fly ash in a 

particulate collection device. This device is assumed to work with a fabric filter for 

particulates collection.

Cost estimates were developed for each BSCP facility assuming the APCDs are 

implemented according to various scenarios. In general, an FF and ACI were assumed to be the 

APCD needed to meet the MACT limits for an uncontrolled kiln. Table 3-1 presents the general 

implementation scenarios for tunnel kilns required to meet MACT for all pollutants. 

Table 3-1. APCD Implementation Scenarios to Meet MACT Limits

APCD

Meets Non-Hg 

HAP Metals or 

PM Limit

Meets Mercury

Limit APCD Implementation Scenario

None Yes No Install new FF with ACI

None No Yes Install new FF

None No No Install new FF with ACI

Existing DIFF Yes Yes No action

Existing DIFF Yes No Add ACI

Existing DIFF No Yes Retrofit DIFF for PM control

Existing DIFF No No Retrofit DIFF for PM control; add ACI

Existing DLS/FF Yes Yes No action

Existing DLA Yes No Add FF with ACI

Existing DLA No Yes Add FF

Existing DLA No No Add FF with ACI

The option to “Install new DLA” was evaluated for facilities to become an SA. All 

scenarios in Table 3-1 assume meeting the HBS for acid gases.

The following are the scenarios considered to meet the HBSs:

■ If a kiln can meet the non-Hg HAP metals or PM and Hg MACT limits and is located 

at a facility that can meet the health-based limits, no additional costs would be 

incurred.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.88", No

page break before, Keep lines together

Formatted: Don't keep lines together
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-4

■ If an uncontrolled kiln or a kiln with a DLA is located at a facility that can meet the 

health-based limits, then only an FF would be needed to meet the non-Hg HAP 

metals or PM MACT limit, and activated carbon injection would be needed to meet 

the Hg MACT limit.

■ Because the health-based limits are on a facility-wide basis, the owner or operator of 

a facility not meeting the health-based limits with current controls may not have to 

add an APCD to every uncontrolled kiln and enhance every existing APCD.

Engineering judgment was used to assign minimum control “actions needed” based 

on a review of the contribution of each emission point’s to the allowable HClequivalent emissions. Additional information about this assessment is presented in the 

memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final 

BSCP NESHAP” included in the docket.

Table 3-2 presents the annual cost for each of the regulatory approaches.

Table 3-2. National Annual Costs of Compliance (2011 million USD)

Regions Option 1

Option 2 Final 

Rule Option 3

NEG New England $0 $0 $0

MID Middle Atlantic $2 $2 $2

ENC East North Central $3 $3 $6

WNC West North Central $1 $1 $3

SAC South Atlantic $8 $9 $16

ESC East South Central $4 $4 $7

WSC West South Central $6 $5 $9

MTN Mountain $0 $0 $1

PAC Pacific $0 $0 $2

USA United States $24 $25 $47

USA United States, with 

recordkeeping and 

reporting

$27 $28 $50

3.2 Summary of Costs by Control Device

A key component of the total annual costs presented in Table 3-1 is the implementation 

cost of the APCDs required to (1) meet the MACT limits for Hg and for non-Hg HAP metals or 

PM, (2) become an SA source, and/or (3) meet an HBS for acid gases, according to the 

compliance options. This section provides an overview of how the capital and annual costs of 

implementation were estimated. Additional information about those estimates is provided in the 

Formatted: Don't keep lines together
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-5

memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP 

NESHAP” included in the docket.

Consistent with the information presented in Section 3.1, the following are the APCD 

implementation scenarios considered in this analysis:

■ Install new DLA

■ Install new FF

■ Install new ACI

■ Install new FF and ACI

■ Retrofit with DIFF

■ Retrofit with DIFF and ACI

■ No action

Table 3-3 presents the capital and annual costs of each implementation option.

Table 3-3. Capital and Annual Costs of APCD Implementation Scenarios (2011 USD)

Control Options

Capital Costs Annual Costs

Small APCD Large APCD Small APCD Large APCD

Install new DLA $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $358,556 $459,886 

Install new FF $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $503,144 $579,541 

Install new ACI $102,224 $146,697 $81,307 $105,763 

Install new FF and ACI $2,800,000 $3,820,000 $804,907 $1,017,978 

Retrofit with DIFF $2,902,224 $3,966,697 $886,214 $1,123,741 

Retrofit with DIFF and ACI $1,096,473 $1,489,548 $358,556 $459,886 

Costs are presented for small and large APCDs. A small control device would be used if 

the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to that device is less than 10 tons of bricks per 

hour. A large control device would be used if the operating capacity of the kiln(s) being routed to 

that device is 10 tons of bricks or more per hour. Capital cost data were generally obtained from 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) and supplemented with information from literature 

sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-6

The estimates of annual cost include

■ operation and maintenance (O&M) labor;

■ materials;

■ electricity;

■ waste disposal;

■ overhead; and

■ property taxes, insurance, and administration.

Information pertaining to cost data sources and how they were used to develop unit costs 

for each APCD is provided in the memorandum “Methodology and Assumptions Used to 

Estimate the Final Model Costs and Impacts of BSCP Air Pollution Control Devices.”

Annualization of the capital costs involves establishing an annual “payment” sufficient to 

finance the investment over the expected lifetime of the equipment or loan period. This payment 

is typically referred to as the “capital recovery cost.” The three key inputs into the capital 

recovery costs are the capital costs, the interest rate, and the equipment life. This analysis 

assumed a 20-year equipment life and a 7% interest rate, which corresponds to the interest rate 

used in OAQPS’s analyses. 

3.3 Summary of Results

This section presents total annualized costs for each regulatory approach. Total 

annualized cost is the sum of the annualized capital cost and the annual costs. The following is a 

summary of those results:

■ Option 1: approximately $27 million

■ Option 2 Final Rule: approximately $28 million

■ Option 3: approximately $50 million

Annual costs listed above for each compliance option also include costs for testing and 

monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs incurred by facilities that have testing 

and monitoring costs1

.

 1 Recordkeeping and reporting costs reflect the annualized present value of the stream of recordkeeping and 

reporting labor costs (reported in Section 6.3). between 2015 and 2038 ($3 million). 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-7

The consideration of raw material variability in the Hg limits in Options 2 and 3 results in 

less stringent limits compared to Option 1, but the difference is not great enough to have a 

significant impact on the nationwide costs. In addition, compared to Option 1, Option 2 has more 

stringent PM/total non-Hg HAP metals limits for large kilns but less stringent PM/total non-Hg 

HAP metals limits for small kilns. Therefore, more small kilns would be expected to meet the 

PM/total non-Hg HAP metals limits under Option 2, but fewer large kilns would be expected to 

meet the PM/total non-Hg HAP metals limits under Option 2. As a result, the overall costs are 

slightly higher under Option 2 because more of the APCD being installed are larger, more 

expensive units.

The only difference between Option 2 and Option 3 is that Option 3 does not have size 

subcategories for PM/total non-Hg HAP metals limits. The PM/total non-Hg HAP metals limits 

for all kilns under Option 3 are either equivalent or very close to the large kiln PM/total non-Hg 

HAP metals limits for large kilns under Option 2. This has the effect of requiring all small kilns 

to meet a significantly more stringent limit under Option 3, and as shown in Table 3-4, more than 

twice the number of APCD would be needed to meet Option 3 compared to Options 1 or 2. Over 

half of the APCD expected to be installed would be DLA installed on uncontrolled kilns for 

purposes of becoming SA facilities.

When looking at annual costs per region of the country, the South Atlantic region (SAC)

consistently exhibits the highest cost and the Pacific region (PAC) the lowest nonzero cost.

Retrofitting with DIFF and ACI is the option that exhibits the highest cost and installing a 

new ACI system the lowest, which is consistent with the capital cost results.

We provide additional details on the number of stacks required to take action to achieve 

compliance (Table 3-4). Additional details on existing baseline control devices is presented in 

the memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP 

NESHAP” included in the docket.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3-8

Table 3-4. Number of Stacks Taking Actions to Achieve Compliance (2011 USD)

Action to Achieve Compliance

Standards Parameter

Install DLA 

(become SA)

Install 

FF

Install FF 

+ ACI

Add ACI to 

Existing 

APCD

Retrofit 

with 

DIFF Totals

Option 1 Number of 

Stacks

15 9 15 5 1 45

Capital Cost $19.6 $13.2 $24.7 $0.733 $3.82 $62.0

Annual Cost $6.19 $5.14 $10.3 $0.529 $1.02 $23.2

Option 2 Number of 

Stacks

8 13 16 5 1 43

Capital Cost $11.9 $19.5 $26.3 $0.733 $3.82 $62.3

Annual Cost $3.68 $7.53 $11.0 $0.529 $1.02 $23.7

Option 3 Number of 

Stacks 54 24 14 4 1 98

Capital Cost $63.5 $33.6 $23.1 $0.587 $3.82 $128 

Annual Cost $20.5 $13.3 $9.59 $0.423 $1.02 $45.8 

Formatted: Keep with next

Formatted: Keep with next

Formatted: Keep with next

Formatted: Keep with next

Formatted: Keep with next
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-1

SECTION 4

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Synopsis

Implementation of emissions controls required by the Brick and Structural Clay 

NESHAP is expected to reduce direct emissions of particulate matter (including PM2.5) and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) that are the result of emissions limits that are being tightened for a number 

of categories, and imposed for the first time for other categories. In this section, we quantify the 

monetized co-benefits for this rule associated with reducing exposure to ambient fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) by reducing emissions of precursors. The total PM2.5 and SO2 reductions are the 

consequence of the expected design changes to the affected manufacturing plants needed in order 

to meet the multiple limits. We estimate the total monetized co-benefits of the final rule to be 

$83 million to $190 million at a 3% discount rate and $75 million to $170 million at a 7% 

discount rate in 2018, including consideration of energy disbenefits. All estimates are in 2011$ as 

they are summarized in Table 4-1. 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 EPA from 

monetizing the benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits from 

reducing exposure up to 375 tons of HAP (acid gases and metals) each year, as well as reducing 

ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. 

4.1 PM2.5-Related Human Health Co-benefits

This rule is expected to reduce direct emissions of PM and emissions of SO2, which is a 

precursor to formation of ambient PM2.5. Therefore, reducing these emissions would also reduce 

human exposure to ambient PM2.5 and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. In this 

section, we provide an overview of the PM2.5-related benefits. A full description of the 

underlying data, studies, and assumptions is provided in the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

In implementing this rule, emission controls may lead to reductions in ambient PM2.5 

concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM in some 

areas and assist other areas with attaining the PM NAAQS. Because the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. 

EPA, 2012a) also calculated PM benefits, there are important differences worth noting in the 

design and analytical objectives of each RIA. The NAAQS RIAs illustrate the potential costs and 

benefits of attaining a revised air quality standard nationwide based on an array of emission 

reduction strategies for different sources including known and unknown controls, incremental to 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-2

implementation of existing regulations and controls need to attain the current standards. In short, 

NAAQS RIAs hypothesize, but do not predict, the reduction strategies that States may choose to 

enact when implementing a revised NAAQS. The setting of a NAAQS does not directly result in 

costs or benefits, and as such, the NAAQS RIAs are merely illustrative and the estimated costs 

and benefits are not intended to be added to the costs and benefits of other regulations that result 

in specific costs of control and emission reductions. However, it is possible that some costs and 

benefits associated with the required emission controls estimated in this RIA may account for the 

same air quality improvements as estimated in the illustrative PM NAAQS RIA. 

By contrast, the emission reductions for implementation rules such as this rulemaking are 

generally for specific, well-characterized sources. In general, EPA is more confident in the 

magnitude and location of the emission reductions for implementation rules. As such, emission 

reductions achieved under these and other promulgated implementation rules will ultimately be 

reflected in the baseline of future NAAQS analyses, which would reduce the incremental costs 

and benefits associated with attaining revised future NAAQS. EPA remains forward looking 

towards the next iteration of the 5-year review cycle for the NAAQS. As a result, EPA does not 

re-issue NAAQS RIAs that retroactively update the baseline to account for implementation rules 

promulgated after a NAAQS RIA outside of the NAAQS review process. For more information 

on the relationship between the NAAQS and implementation rules such as analyzed here, please 

see Section 1.3 of the PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a).

4.1.1 Health Impact Assessment

The Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA) (U.S. EPA, 2009) 

identified the human health effects associated with ambient PM2.5, which include premature 

morality and a variety of morbidity effects associated with acute and chronic exposures. Table 

4-1 provides the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in EPA’s benefits estimates for 

reduced exposure to ambient PM2.5. Although the table below does not include entries for the 

unquantified health effects such as exposure to ozone and NO2 nor welfare effects such as 

ecosystem effects and visibility impairment, these effects are itemized in Chapters 5 and 6 of the 

PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). It is important to emphasize that the list of unquantified 

benefit categories is not exhaustive, nor is quantification of each effect complete.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-3

Table 4-1. Human Health Effects of Ambient PM2.5

Category Specific Effect

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized

More 

Information 

in PM 

NAAQS RIA

Improved Human Health

Reduced incidence 

of premature 

mortality from 

exposure to PM2.5

Adult premature mortality based on cohort 

study estimates and expert elicitation 

estimates (age >25 or age >30)

  Section 5.6

Infant mortality (age <1)   Section 5.6

Reduced incidence 

of morbidity from 

exposure to PM2.5

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18)   Section 5.6

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages)   Section 5.6

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age 

>20)

  Section 5.6

Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)   Section 5.6

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12)   Section 5.6

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14)   Section 5.6

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 

9–11)

  Section 5.6

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6–18)   Section 5.6

Lost work days (age 18–65)   Section 5.6

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65)   Section 5.6

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26) --a --a Section 5.6

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular 

effects (all ages)

--a --a Section 5.6

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50–

79)

--a --a Section 5.6

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages) -- -- PM ISAb

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary 

function, non-asthma ER visits, nonbronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and 

populations)

-- -- PM ISAb

Reproductive and developmental effects 

(e.g., low birth weight, pre-term births, etc.)

-- -- PM ISAb,c

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity 

effects

-- -- PM ISAb,c

a We assess these benefits qualitatively due to time and resource limitations for this analysis. In the PM NAAQS 

RIA, these benefits were quantified in a sensitivity analysis, but not in the core analysis.

b We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods.

c We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other 

significant concerns over the strength of the association.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-4

We follow a “damage-function” approach in calculating benefits, which estimates 

changes in individual health endpoints (specific effects that can be associated with changes in air 

quality) and assigns values to those changes assuming independence of the values for those 

individual endpoints. Because EPA rarely has the time or resources to perform new research to 

measure directly either the health outcomes or their values for regulatory analyses, our estimates 

are based on the best available methods of benefits transfer, which is the science and art of 

adapting primary research from similar contexts to estimate benefits for the environmental 

quality change under analysis. 

The health impact assessment (HIA) quantifies the changes in the incidence of adverse 

health impacts resulting from changes in human exposure to PM2.5 or other air pollutants. We 

use the environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) to systematize health 

impact analyses by applying a database of key input parameters, including population 

projections, health impact functions, and valuation functions (Abt Associates, 2012). For this 

assessment, the HIA is limited to those health effects that are directly linked to ambient PM2.5

concentrations. Epidemiological studies generally provide estimates of the relative risks of a 

particular health effect for a given increment of air pollution (often per 10 μg/m3 for PM2.5). 

These relative risks can be used to develop risk coefficients that relate a unit reduction in PM2.5 

to changes in the incidence of a health effect. We refer the reader to section 5.6 of the PM 

NAAQS RIA for more information regarding the epidemiology studies and risk coefficients 

applied in this analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012a), and we briefly elaborate on adult premature mortality 

below. The size of the mortality effect estimates from epidemiological studies, the serious nature 

of the effect itself, and the high monetary value ascribed to prolonging life make mortality risk 

reduction the most significant health endpoint quantified in this analysis.

Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, reflecting thousands of 

epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies, the PM ISA documents the association between 

elevated PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature 

mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009). The PM ISA, which was twice reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB-CASAC) (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2009b, 

2009c), concluded that there is a causal relationship between mortality and both long-term and 

short-term exposure to PM2.5 based on the entire body of scientific evidence. The PM ISA also 

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold log-linear model 

most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship while 

recognizing potential uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response function. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-5

For mortality, we use the effect coefficients from the most recent epidemiology studies 

examining two large population cohorts: the American Cancer Society cohort (Krewski et al., 

2009) and the Harvard Six Cities cohort (Lepeule et al., 2012). The PM ISA (U.S. EPA, 2009) 

concluded that the ACS and Six Cities cohorts provide the strongest evidence of the association 

between long-term PM2.5 exposure and premature mortality with support from a number of 

additional cohort studies. The SAB’s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB-HES) also supported 

using these two cohorts for analyses of the benefits of PM reductions (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2010a). 

As both the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies have inherent strengths and weaknesses, we 

present benefits estimates using relative risk estimates from both these cohorts (Krewski et al., 

2009; Lepeule et al., 2012).

As a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5 -mortality relationship, EPA 

graphically presents benefits derived from EPA’s expert elicitation study (Roman et al., 2008; 

IEc, 2006). The primary goal of the 2006 study was to elicit from a sample of health experts 

probabilistic distributions describing uncertainty in estimates of the reduction in mortality among 

the adult U.S. population resulting from reductions in ambient annual average PM2.5 levels. In 

that study, twelve experts provided independent opinions of the PM2.5 -mortality concentrationresponse function. Because the experts relied upon the ACS and Six Cities cohort studies to 

inform their concentration-response functions, the benefits estimates derived from the expert 

responses generally fall between results derived from the these studies (see Figure 7-1). We do 

not combine the expert results in order to preserve the breadth and diversity of opinion on the 

expert panel. This presentation of the expert-derived results is generally consistent with SAB 

advice (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008), which recommended that the EPA emphasize that “scientific 

differences existed only with respect to the magnitude of the effect of PM2.5 on mortality, not 

whether such an effect existed” and that the expert elicitation “supports the conclusion that the 

benefits of PM2.5 control are very likely to be substantial.” Although it is possible that newer 

scientific literature could revise the experts’ quantitative responses if elicited again, we believe 

that these general conclusions are unlikely to change.

4.1.2 Economic Valuation

After quantifying the change in adverse health impacts, we estimate the economic value 

of these avoided impacts. Reductions in ambient concentrations of air pollution generally lower 

the risk of future adverse health effects by a small amount for a large population. Therefore, the 

appropriate economic measure is willingness to pay (WTP) for changes in risk of a health effect. 

For some health effects, such as hospital admissions, WTP estimates are generally not available, 

so we use the cost of treating or mitigating the effect. These cost-of-illness (COI) estimates 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-6

generally (although not necessarily in every case) understate the true value of reductions in risk 

of a health effect. They tend to reflect the direct expenditures related to treatment but not the 

value of avoided pain and suffering from the health effect. The unit values applied in this 

analysis are provided in Table 5-9 of the PM NAAQS RIA for each health endpoint (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).

Avoided premature deaths account for 98% of monetized PM-related benefits. The 

economics literature concerning the appropriate method for valuing reductions in premature 

mortality risk is still developing. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of 

premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economics and public 

policy analysis community. Following the advice of the SAB’s Environmental Economics 

Advisory Committee (SAB-EEAC), the EPA currently uses the value of statistical life (VSL) 

approach in calculating estimates of mortality benefits, because we believe this calculation 

provides the most reasonable single estimate of an individual’s willingness to trade off money 

for reductions in mortality risk (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2000). The VSL approach is a summary 

measure for the value of small changes in mortality risk experienced by a large number of 

people.

EPA continues work to update its guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions, and the 

Agency consulted several times with the SAB-EEAC on the issue. Until updated guidance is 

available, the Agency determined that a single, peer-reviewed estimate applied consistently best 

reflects the SAB-EEAC advice it has received. Therefore, EPA has decided to apply the VSL 

that was vetted and endorsed by the SAB in the Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

(U.S. EPA, 2000)11 while the Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this issue. 

This approach calculates a mean value across VSL estimates derived from 26 labor market and 

contingent valuation studies published between 1974 and 1991. The mean VSL across these 

studies is $6.3 million (2000$).12

We then adjust this VSL to account for the currency year used in this RIA and to account 

for income growth from 1990 to the analysis year. The adjusted value for VSL is $9.7 million 

($2011). Further details on the methodology are available in section 5.6.8 of the PM RIA 

(U.S.EPA, 2012a).

 11In the updated Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e), EPA retained the VSL endorsed 

by the SAB with the understanding that further updates to the mortality risk valuation guidance would be 

forthcoming in the near future. 

12In 1990$, this VSL is $4.8 million. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-7

The Agency is committed to using scientifically sound, appropriately reviewed evidence 

in valuing mortality risk reductions and has made significant progress in responding to the SABEEAC’s specific recommendations. In the process, the Agency has identified a number of 

important issues to be considered in updating its mortality risk valuation estimates. These are 

detailed in a white paper on “Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Environmental Policy,” (U.S. 

EPA, 2010c) which recently underwent review by the SAB-EEAC. A meeting with the SAB on 

this paper was held on March 14, 2011 and formal recommendations were transmitted on 

July 29, 2011 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2011). Draft guidance responding to SAB recommendations will 

be developed shortly.

In valuing premature mortality, we discount the value of premature mortality occurring in 

future years using rates of 3% and 7% (OMB, 2003). We assume that there is a “cessation” lag 

between changes in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in health effects. The 

distributed lag accounts for the expected distribution of avoided deaths according to the cause of 

death. The lag assumes that the initial proportion of deaths is due to cardiovascular outcomes, 

while the latter proportion is due to lung cancer. Although the structure of the lag is uncertain, 

the EPA follows the advice of the SAB-HES to assume a segmented lag structure characterized 

by 30% of mortality reductions in the first year, 50% over years 2 to 5, and 20% over the years 6 

to 20 after the reduction in PM2.5 (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2004c). Changes in the cessation lag 

assumptions do not change the total number of estimated deaths but rather the timing of those

deaths.

4.1.3 Benefit-per-Ton Estimates

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. 

EPA has applied in several previous RIAs (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011b, 2011d, 2012b). These benefitper-ton estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature 

mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of PM2.5 (or PM2.5 precursor such as 

NOx or SO2) from a specified source. Specifically, in this analysis, we multiplied the estimates 

from the “Other Non-EGU Point” sector13,14 by the corresponding emission reductions. The 

method used to derive these estimates is described in the Technical Support Document (TSD) on 

estimating the benefits-per-ton of reducing PM2.5 and its precursors from 17 sectors (U.S. EPA, 

 13As explained in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013), we only have benefit-per-ton estimates for certain analysis years (i.e., 

2005, 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030). For this RIA, we selected the benefit-per-ton estimate closest to the analysis 

year for this RIA. 

14[Data from year 2016 was used as closest to full implementation year 2018 for this rule, and the sector was 

matched with Non EGU Others category]
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-8

2013). One limitation of using the benefit-per-ton approach is an inability to provide estimates of 

the health benefits associated with exposure to HAP, CO, NO2, or ozone.

The benefit-per-ton estimates described in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2013) were derived using 

the approach published in Fann et al. (2012), but they have since been updated to reflect the 

studies and population data in the final PM NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a). The approach in 

Fann et al. (2012) is similar to the work previously published by Fann et al. (2009), but the 

newer study includes improvements that EPA believes would provide more reliable estimates of 

PM2.5-related health benefits for emissions reductions in specific sectors. Specifically, the air 

quality modeling data reflect sectors that are more narrowly defined. In addition, the updated air 

quality modeling data reflects more recent emissions data (2005 rather than 2001) and has higher 

spatial resolution (12km rather than 36 km grid cells). 

The benefit-per-ton of reducing directly emitted PM2.5 from this sector represented by the 

above mentioned category is close to the median of the distribution of all 17 BPT values (TSD 

Table 7). For example, the sector’s BPT for directly emitted PM2.5 is close to the value for the 

Cement Kilns sector and smaller than the Ferroalloys sector, but greater than the value for the 

Coke Ovens or the Iron and Steel sectors. The size of the benefit-per-ton estimate is influenced 

in part by factors including: proximity of sources to population receptors; the baseline health 

status of the population receptors; and, dispersion characteristics of the emitting source.

As noted below in the characterization of uncertainty, all benefit-per-ton estimates have 

inherent limitations. Specifically, all national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the

geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission 

reductions in this rulemaking, and they may not reflect local variability in population density, 

meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for any specific 

location. The photochemical modeled emissions of the bricks sector-attributable PM2.5

concentrations used to derive the BPT values may not match well the change in air quality 

resulting from the emissions controls described in Section 3. For this reason, the health benefits 

reported here may be larger, or smaller, than those realized by this rule.

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. The sector-specific modeling does not 

provide estimates of the PM2.5-related benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions, but 

these unquantified benefits are generally small compared to other PM2.5 precursors (U.S. EPA, 

2012a).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-9

4.1.4 PM2.5 Co-benefits Results

Table 4-2 summarizes the monetized PM-related health benefits by precursor pollutant, 

including the emission reductions and benefit-per-ton estimates using discount rates of 3% and 

7%. Table 4-3 provides a summary of the reductions in health incidences associated with these 

pollution reductions. Figure 4-1 provides a visual representation of the range of PM2.5-related 

benefits estimates using concentration-response functions from Krewski et al. (2009) and 

Lepeule et al. (2012) as well as the 12 functions supplied by experts. In Table 4-4, we provide 

the benefits using our anchor points of Krewski et al., and Lepeule et al., as well as the results 

from the 12 experts’ elicitation on PM mortality.

4.1.5 Characterization of Uncertainty in the Monetized PM2.5 Co-benefits

In any complex analysis using estimated parameters and inputs from numerous models, 

there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. This analysis is no exception. This analysis 

includes many data sources as inputs, including emission inventories, air quality data from 

models (with their associated parameters and inputs), population data, population estimates, 

health effect estimates from epidemiology studies, economic data for monetizing benefits, and 

assumptions regarding the future state of the world (i.e., regulations, technology, and human 

behavior). Each of these inputs may be uncertain and would affect the benefits estimate. When 

the uncertainties from each stage of the analysis are compounded, even small uncertainties can 

have large effects on the total quantified benefits. Therefore, the estimates of annual benefits 

should be viewed as representative of the magnitude of benefits expected, rather than the actual 

benefits that would occur every year.

This RIA does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM 

NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012a) because we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring 

data to run the benefits model. However, the results of the uncertainty analyses presented in the 

PM NAAQS RIA can provide some information regarding the uncertainty inherent in the 

benefits results presented in this analysis. Sensitivity analyses conducted for the PM NAAQS 

RIA indicate that alternate cessation lag assumptions could change the PM2.5-related mortality 

benefits discounted at 3% by between 10% and −27% and that alternate income growth 

adjustments could change the PM2.5-related mortality benefits by between 33% and −14%.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-10

Table 4-2. Summary of Monetized PM2.5 and its Precursor SO2- Related Health Cobenefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 (2011$)a,b

Options

Pollutant

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons)

Benefitper-ton 

(Krewski, 

3%)

Benefitper-ton 

(Lepeule, 

3%)

Benefitper-ton 

(Krewski, 

7%)

Benefitper-ton 

(Lepeule, 

7%)

Monetized 

Benefits (millions 

2011$ at 3%)

Monetized 

Benefits 

(millions 2011$ 

at 7%)

Option 1 Directly emitted PM2.5 235 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $62 to $140 $56 to $130

PM2.5 Precursors

SO2 168 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $6.8 to $15 $6.1 to $14

NOx -41 $6,300 $14,000 $5,700 $13,000 -$0.26 to -$0.59 -$0.23 to -$0.53

Total $69 to $160 $62 to $140

Final Rule: Option 2Directly emitted PM2.5 308 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $82 to $180 $74 to $170

PM2.5 Precursors

SO2 72 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $2.9 to $6.6 $2.6 to $6.0

NOx -46 $6,300 $14,000 $5,700 $13,000 -$0.29 to -$0.66 -$0.26 to -$0.59

Total $84 to $190 $76 to $170

Option 3 Directly emitted PM2.5 415 $260,000 $600,000 $240,000 $540,000 $110 to $250 $100 to $220

PM2.5 Precursors

SO2 568 $41,000 $92,000 $37,000 $83,000 $23 to $52 $21 to $47

NOx -77 $6,300 $14,000 $5,700 $13,000 -$0.49 to -$1.1 -$0.44 to -$0.99

Total $130 to $300 $120 to $270

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. It is important to 

note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from direct exposure to NO2, ozone 

exposure, ecosystem effects, or visibility impairment. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health 

effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 

levels, which drive population exposure. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor 

emissions to ambient fine particles. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the benefitper-ton methodology.

b These estimates reflect the net emissions impact after consideration of electricity disbenefits. These estimates do 

not include monetized CO2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $5 million depending on the option and discount 

rate. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-11

Table 4-3. Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 and its Precursor 

SO2- Related Co-benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018a

Option 1 Final Rule: 

Option 2 Option 3

Avoided Premature Mortality

Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) 8 10 15

Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) 18 22 34

Avoided Morbidity

Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) 4 5 8

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12) 12 15 23

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14) 150 190 290

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9–11) 220 270 420

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) 6,100 7,500 12,000

Lost work days (age 18–65) 1,000 1,300 2,000

Asthma exacerbation (age 6–18) 230 280 430

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) 2 3 4

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age > 18) 3 3 5

Non-Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18)

Peters et al. (2001) 8 10 16

Pooled estimate of 4 studies 1 1 2

a All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. Confidence intervals are unavailable for 

this analysis because of the benefit-per-ton methodology. These estimates reflect the net impact after 

consideration of electricity disbenefits.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-12

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other 

expert functions for the Final Rule—Option 2

3%

7%

Experts

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Benefits Estimates from Two epidemiology Studies and 12 other 

expert functions for the Final Rule—Option 2

3%

7%

Experts
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-13

Figure 4-1. Total Monetized PM2.5 Co-benefits of Final Brick and Structural Clay Rule 

in 2018 a,b

a This graph shows the estimated benefits at discount rates of 3% and 7% using effect coefficients derived from the 

Krewski et al. study and the Lepeule et al. study, as well as 12 effect coefficients derived from EPA’s expert 

elicitation on PM mortality. The results shown are not the direct results from the studies or expert elicitation; 

rather, the estimates are based in part on the concentration-response functions provided in those studies. 

b These estimates reflect the net emissions impact after consideration of electricity disbenefits. These estimates do 

not include monetized CO2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $5 million depending on the option and discount 

rate. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-14

Table 4-4. All PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Brick and Structural Clay Rule in 2018 at 

Discount Rates of 3% and 7% Averaged ($2011 millions)a,b

Option 1 Final Rule: Option 2 Option 3

3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7%

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Epidemiology Literature

Krewski $69 $62 $84 $76 $130 $120 

Lepeule $160 $140 $190 $170 $300 $270 

Benefit-per-ton Coefficients Derived from Expert Elicitation

Expert A $180 $160 $220 $200 $340 $310

Expert B $140 $130 $180 $160 $280 $250

Expert C $140 $130 $170 $160 $270 $240

Expert D $99 $90 $120 $110 $190 $170

Expert E $230 $210 $280 $250 $440 $400

Expert F $130 $120 $160 $150 $260 $230

Expert G $83 $75 $100 $92 $160 $140

Expert H $100 $93 $130 $110 $200 $180

Expert I $140 $130 $170 $150 $270 $240

Expert J $110 $100 $140 $130 $220 $200

Expert K $17 $16 $21 $19 $33 $30

Expert L $96 $87 $120 $110 $180 $170

a All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. Estimates do not include confidence intervals because they 

were derived through the benefit-per-ton technique described above. The benefits estimates from the expert 

elicitation are provided as a reasonable characterization of the uncertainty in the mortality estimates associated 

with the concentration-response function. Confidence intervals are unavailable for this analysis because of the 

benefit-per-ton methodology. 

b These estimates reflect the net emissions impact after consideration of electricity disbenefits. These estimates do 

not include monetized CO2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $5 million depending on the option and discount 

rate. 

Unlike the PM NAAQS RIA, we do not have data on the specific location of the air 

quality changes associated with this rulemaking. As such, it is not feasible to estimate the 

proportion of benefits occurring in different locations, such as designated nonattainment areas. 

Instead, we applied benefit-per-ton estimates, which reflect specific geographic patterns of 

emissions reductions and specific air quality and benefits modeling assumptions for each sector 

(U.S. EPA, 2013). For example, these estimates do not reflect local variability in population 

density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors that might 

lead to an over-estimate or under-estimate of the actual benefits of controlling PM precursors. 

Use of these $/ton values to estimate benefits may lead to higher or lower benefit estimates than 

if benefits were calculated based on direct air quality modeling. Great care should be taken in 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-15

applying these estimates to emission emissions reductions occurring in any specific location, as 

these reflect on national or regional emission changes and therefore represent average benefitsper-ton over the entire United States (U.S. EPA, 2013). The benefits-per-ton for emission 

reductions in specific locations may be very different than the estimates presented here, and the 

approach above did not yield benefit per-ton estimates at a sub-national level for this sector. To 

the extent that the geographic distributions of the emissions reductions for this rule are different 

than the modeled emissions, the benefits may be underestimated or overestimated. In general, 

there is inherently more uncertainty for new sources, which may not be included in the emissions 

inventory, than existing sources. For more information, see the TSD describing the calculation of 

these benefit-per-ton estimates (U.S. EPA, 2013).

Our estimate of the total benefits is based on EPA’s interpretation of the best available 

scientific literature and methods and supported by the SAB-HES and the NAS (NRC, 2002). 

Below are key assumptions underlying the estimates for premature mortality which accounts for 

98% of the total monetized PM2.5 benefits: 

1. We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are 

equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, 

because PM2.5 varies considerably in composition across sources, but the scientific 

evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle 

type. The PM ISA concluded that “many constituents of PM2.5 can be linked with 

multiple health effects, and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation 

of those constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific outcomes”

(U.S. EPA, 2009).

2. We assume that the health impact function for fine particles is log-linear without a 

threshold in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing 

fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5, including both areas that 

do not meet the fine particle standard and those areas that are in attainment, down to 

the lowest modeled concentrations. 

3. We assume that there is a “cessation” lag between the change in PM exposures and 

the total realization of changes in mortality effects. Specifically, we assume that some 

of the incidences of premature mortality related to PM2.5 exposures occur in a 

distributed fashion over the 20 years following exposure based on the advice of the 

SAB-HES (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2004c), which affects the valuation of mortality benefits 

at different discount rates.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-16

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.15 Rather, the benefits estimates reported in this RIA 

are the best estimates because they reflect the full range of air quality concentrations associated 

with the emission reduction strategies and because the current body of scientific literature 

indicates that a no-threshold model provides the best estimate of PM-related long-term mortality. 

In other words, although we may have less confidence in the magnitude of the risk at 

concentrations below these benchmarks, we still have high confidence that PM2.5 is causally 

associated with risk at those lower air quality concentrations.

For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data is not available due to time or resource 

limitations. For this rule, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality 

associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. However, we believe 

that it is still important to characterize the distribution of exposure to baseline air quality levels. 

As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population 

exposed at each PM2.5 level in the baseline of the source apportionment modeling used to 

calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. 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. In other words, the percentage of the population exposed to 

air pollution below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing 

health impacts as a result of a specific emission reduction policy. The most important aspect, 

which we are unable to quantify for rules without rule-specific air quality modeling, is the shift 

in exposure associated with this specific rule. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting 

the LML assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules 

that had air quality modeling. 

 15For a summary of the scientific review statements regarding the lack of a threshold in the PM2.5-mortality 

relationship, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) entitled Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence 

of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related Mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010b).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-17

Table 4-5 provides the percentage of the population exposed above and below two 

concentration benchmarks (i.e., LML and 1 standard deviation below the mean) in the modeled 

baseline. Figure 4-2 shows a bar chart of the percentage of the population exposed to various air 

quality levels in the baseline, and Figure 4-3 shows a cumulative distribution function of the 

same data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. 

Table 4-5. Population Exposure in the Baseline Above and Below Various Concentration 

Benchmarks in the Underlying Epidemiology Studiesa

Epidemiology 

Study

Below 1 Std. Dev.

Below AQ Mean

At or Above 1 Std. 

Dev. Below AQ Mean Below LML At or Above 

LML

Krewski et al. (2009) 89% 11% 7% 93%

Lepeule et al. (2012) N/A N/A 23% 67%

a One standard deviation below the mean is equivalent to the middle of the range between the 10th and 25th

percentile. For Krewski, the LML is 5.8 μg/m3 and one standard deviation below the mean is 11.0 μg/m3

. For 

Lepeule et al., the LML is 8 μg/m3 and we do not have the data for one standard deviation below the mean. It is 

important to emphasize that although we have lower levels of confidence in levels below the LML for each study, 

the scientific evidence does not support the existence of a level below which health effects from exposure to 

PM2.5 do not occur.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-18

Figure 4-2. Percentage of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the 

Baseline

Among the populations exposed to PM2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study

67% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study

4.2 Energy Disbenefits 

In this section, we provide an estimate of the energy disbenefits associated with the 

increased emissions from additional energy usage. We estimate that electricity usage associated 

with operation of the control devices would increase. This electricity usage is anticipated to 

increase emissions of pollutants from electric utility boilers (EGU boilers) that supply electricity 

to these facilities. In the calculation of health benefits presented above, we have already 

subtracted the PM, SO2, and NOx emission increases associated with increased electricity usage 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20

Percentage of Population Exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM2.5 Level (μg/m3)

 

LML of Lepeule et al. 

(2012) study

LML of Krewski et 

al. (2009) study
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-19

from the emission reductions associated with the regulatory requirements. Table 4-6 provides the 

estimated emission increases for each of the regulatory options analyzed in this RIA.

Table 4-6. Emission Increases Associated with Secondary Energy Disbenefits (short tons 

per year)a

Option Energy Impacts, MMBtu/yr PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO2

1 419,022 1 41 121 25,337

2 461,329 1 46 133 27,896

3 783,978 2 78 226 47,406

a Emission increases for PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 have already been reflected in the monetized PM2.5 co-benefits 

above.

4.2.1 Social Cost of Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Disbenefits

We estimate the global social dis-benefits of CO2 emission increases expected from the 

final rulemaking using the SC-CO2 estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866 (May 2013, Revised July 2015) (“current TSD”).

16 We refer to these estimates, 

which were developed by the U.S. government, as “SC-CO2 estimates.” The SC-CO2 is a metric 

that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO2 emissions 

in a given year. It includes a wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as net changes in 

agricultural productivity and human health, property damage from increased flood risk, and 

changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air 

conditioning. It is typically used to assess the avoided damages as a result of regulatory actions 

(i.e., benefits of rulemakings that lead to an incremental reduction in cumulative global CO2

emissions) but is also used to assess increases in damages expected to result from rulemakings 

leading to an incremental increase in cumulative global CO2 emissions.

The SC-CO2 estimates used in this analysis were developed over many years, using the 

best science available, and with input from the public. Specifically, an interagency working 

group (IWG) that included the EPA and other executive branch agencies and offices used three 

 16 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495, Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, with participation by Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, 

Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury (May 2013, 

Revised July 2015). Available at: <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-finaljuly-2015.pdf> Accessed 7/11/2015.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-20

integrated assessment models (IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2 estimates and recommended four 

global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC-CO2 estimates were first released in 

February 2010 and updated in 2013 using new versions of each IAM.As discussed further 

below, the IWG published two minor corrections to the SC-CO2 estimates in July 2015. 

The SC-CO2 estimates were developed using an ensemble of the three most widely cited 

integrated assessment models in the economics literature with the ability to estimate the SC-CO2. 

A key objective of the IWG was to draw from the insights of the three models while respecting 

the different approaches to linking GHG emissions and monetized damages taken by modelers in 

the published literature. After conducting an extensive literature review, the interagency group 

selected three sets of input parameters (climate sensitivity, socioeconomic and emissions 

trajectories, and discount rates) to use consistently in each model. All other model features were 

left unchanged, relying on the model developers’ best estimates and judgments, as informed by 

the literature. Specifically, a common probability distribution for the equilibrium climate 

sensitivity parameter, which informs the strength of climate’s response to atmospheric GHG 

concentrations, was used across all three models. In addition, a common range of scenarios for 

the socioeconomic parameters and emissions forecasts were used in all three models. Finally, the 

marginal damage estimates from the three models were estimated using a consistent range of

discount rates, 2.5, 3.0, and 5.0%. See the 2010 TSD for a complete discussion of the methods 

used to develop the estimates and the key uncertainties, and the current TSD for the latest 

estimates.17

The 2010 TSD noted a number of limitations to the SC-CO2 analysis, including the 

incomplete way in which the integrated assessment models capture catastrophic and noncatastrophic impacts, their incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and assumptions regarding risk 

aversion. Currently integrated assessment models do not assign value to all of the important 

physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change 

literature due to a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and because the science 

incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the most recent research.18 The 

limited amount of research linking climate impacts to economic damages makes the modeling 

exercise even more difficult. These individual limitations do not all work in the same direction in 

 17 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon for both TSDs. 18 Climate change impacts and SCC modeling is an area of active research. For example, see: (1) Howard, Peter, 

“Omitted Damages: What’s Missing from the Social Cost of Carbon.” March 13, 2014, 

http://costofcarbon.org/files/Omitted_Damages_Whats_Missing_From_the_Social_Cost_of_Carbon.pdf; and (2) 

Electric Power Research Institute, “Understanding the Social Cost of carbon: A Technical Assessment,” October 

2014, www.epri.com. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-21

terms of their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates, though taken together they suggest that the 

SC-CO2 estimates are likely conservative. In particular, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 

(2007), which was the most current IPCC assessment available at the time of the IWG’s 2009-

2010 review, concluded that “It is very likely that [SC-CO2 estimates] underestimate the damage 

costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.” Since then, the peerreviewed literature has continued to support this conclusion. For example, the IPCC Fifth 

Assessment report observed that SC-CO2 estimates continue to omit various impacts that would 

likely increase damages. The 95th percentile estimate was included in the recommended range 

for regulatory impact analysis to address these concerns.

Accordingly, EPA and other agencies continue to engage in research on modeling and 

valuation of climate impacts with the goal to improve these estimates. The EPA and other 

agencies also continue to consider feedback on the SC-CO2 estimates from stakeholders through 

a range of channels, including public comments on Agency rulemakings that use the SC-CO2 in 

supporting analyses and through regular interactions with stakeholders and research analysts 

implementing the SC-CO2 methodology used by the interagency working group. In addition, 

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs sought public comment on the approach 

used to develop the SC-CO2 estimates through a separate comment period that ended on 

February 26, 2014.19

After careful evaluation of the full range of comments, the interagency working group 

continues to recommend the use of the SC-CO2 estimates in regulatory impact analysis.20 With 

the release of the response to comments, the interagency working group announced plans to 

obtain expert independent advice from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine to ensure that the SC-CO2 estimates continue to reflect the best available scientific and 

economic information on climate change. The Academies review will be informed by the public 

comments received and focus on the technical merits and challenges of potential approaches to 

improving the SC-CO2 estimates in future updates. 

Concurrent with OMB’s publication of the response to comments on SC-CO2 and 

announcement of the Academies process, OMB posted a revised TSD that includes two minor 

technical corrections to the current estimates. 21 One technical correction addressed an 

inadvertent omission of climate change damages in the last year of analysis (2300) in one model 

 19 See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technicalupdate-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact 20 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions 21 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon for the response to comments, the blog post 

announcing the Academies’ process, and the current TSD.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-22

and the second addressed a minor indexing error in another model. On average the revised SCCO2 estimates are one dollar less than the mean SC-CO2 estimates reported in the November 

2013 TSD. The change in the estimates associated with the 95th percentile estimates when using 

a 3% discount rate is slightly larger, as those estimates are heavily influenced by the results from 

the model that was affected by the indexing error.

The four SC-CO2 estimates are: $13, $43, $64, and $120 per metric ton of CO2 emissions 

in the year 2018 (2011 dollars).22 The first three values are based on the average SC-CO2 from 

the three IAMs, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5%, respectively. Estimates of the SC-CO2 for 

several discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SC-CO2 is sensitive to 

assumptions about the discount rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate to 

use in an intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred by different 

generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SC-CO2 across all three models at a 

3% discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the SC-CO2 distribution. The SC-CO2 increases over time 

because future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental damages as economies grow 

and physical and economic systems become more stressed in response to greater climate change.

Table 4-7. Estimated Global Disbenefits of CO2 Increases in 2018 (million 2011$)

Discount Rate and Statistic

Option

Metric Tonnes of CO2

Reduced 5% (average) 3% (average)

2.5% 

(average)

3% (95th

percentile)

1 22,985 $0.29 $1.0 $1.5 $2.8

2 25,307 $0.32 $1.1 $1.6 $3.1

3 43,006 $0.55 $1.8 $2.7 $5.3

After incorporating the CO2 electricity disbenefits, the total monetized benefits of the 

final rule (Option 2) are $83 to $190 million at a 3% discount rate. 

4.3 Unquantified Benefits 

The monetized benefits estimated in this RIA only reflect a subset of benefits attributable 

to the health effect reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Data, time, and resource 

limitations prevented EPA from quantifying the impacts to, or monetizing the benefits from 

 22 The TSDs present SC-CO2 in $2007. The estimates were adjusted to 2012$ using the GDP Implicit Price 

Deflator. Also available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ECONI-2013-02/pdf/ECONI-2013-02-Pg3.pdf. The 

SC-CO2 values have been rounded to two significant digits. Unrounded numbers from the 2013 SCC TSD were 

adjusted to 2012$ and used to calculate the CO2 benefits.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-23

several important benefit categories, including benefits associated with the potential exposure to 

HAP, ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment due to the absence of air quality modeling 

data for these pollutants in this analysis. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated 

with these emission reductions. In this section, we provide a qualitative description of these 

benefits. Below is a detailed qualitative assessment of health benefits related to multiple HAPs 

that have been reduced among including HAPs metals (i.e. antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium).

Figure 4-3. Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population by Annual Mean PM2.5 

Exposure in the Baseline

Among the populations exposed to PM2.5 in the baseline:

93% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Krewski et al. (2009) study

67% are exposed to PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of the Lepeule et al. (2012) study

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Cumulative percentage of population exposed

Baseline Annual Mean PM2.5 Level (μg/m3)

 

LML of Krewski et 

al. (2009) study

LML of Lepeule et 

al. (2012) study
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-24

4.3.1 HAP Benefits

Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by 

approximately 42% since 1990, the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 23

predicts that most Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that 

have the potential to cause adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011c).24 The levels of air toxics to 

which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of 

activities in which they engage. NATA includes four steps:

1. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor 

sources

2. Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States

utilizing dispersion models

3. Estimating population exposures across the United States utilizing exposure models

4. Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including 

both cancer and noncancer effects

Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5% of census tracts nationwide have 

increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national cancer risk is about 50 

in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the overall cancer risks are 

formaldehyde and benzene.25 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde forming from other 

emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while stationary, mobile and 

background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining cancer risk.

 23 The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting 

regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, this 

modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA (2011). 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/

24The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.

25Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including 

both quantitative (e.g., model-to-monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission 

inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-25

Noncancer health effects can result from chronic,26 subchronic,27 or acute28 inhalation 

exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory 

effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 

NATA, about three-fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic 

concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health 

effects.Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer 

respiratory risk. 

Figures 4-4 and 4-5 depict the 2005 NATA estimated census tract-level carcinogenic risk 

and noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that large 

reductions in HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health 

risk because toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of 

concern. Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass of the 

targeted emissions.

 26Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used 

laboratory animal species).

27Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, 

up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically 

used laboratory animal species).

28Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-26

Figure 4-4. 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint sources) 

based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory

Because of methodology limitations, we were unable to estimate the benefits associated 

with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced as a result of this rule. In a few previous 

analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA has quantified the benefits of potential 

reductions in the incidences of cancer and non-cancer risk (e.g., U.S. EPA, 1995). In those 

analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) and reference concentrations (RfC) developed 

through risk assessment procedures. The URF is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic 

potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year 

lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m3 of a pollutant.These URFs are 

designed to be conservative, and as such, are more likely to represent the high end of the 

distribution of risk rather than a best or most likely estimate of risk.

An RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious non-cancer health effects during a lifetime.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-27

As the purpose of a benefit analysis is to describe the benefits most likely to occur from a 

reduction in pollution, use of high-end, conservative risk estimates would overestimate the 

benefits of the regulation. While we used high-end risk estimates in past analyses, advice from 

the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended that we avoid using high-end estimates 

in benefit analyses (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2002). Since this time, EPA has continued to develop better 

methods for analyzing the benefits of reductions in HAP.

As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 

(U.S. EPA, 2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with 

reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009). 

While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting ... due to a lack of 

exposure-response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health 

progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods” (U.S. EPA-SAB, 2008).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-28

Figure 4-5. 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of other nonpoint sources) 

based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory

In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and 

uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations 

from this workshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and 

vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011). 

In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires 

several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to 

carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). 

Due to methodology and time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we did not attempt to 

monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a 

qualitative analysis of the health effects associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by 

these rules. EPA remains committed to improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by 

continuing to explore additional concepts of benefits, including changes in the distribution of 

risk. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-29

Below we describe the health effects associated with the HAP that would be reduced by 

this rulemaking, including 2 tons of chlorine, 22 tons of hydrogen chloride, 344 tons of hydrogen 

fluoride, 147 pounds of mercury, and 7 tons of other metal HAP (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium).

4.3.1.1 Arsenic

Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, is found throughout the environment and is 

considered toxic through the oral, inhalation and dermal routes. Acute (short-term) high-level 

inhalation exposure to As dust or fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, 

abdominal pain, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage); central and peripheral nervous system 

disorders have occurred in workers acutely exposed to inorganic As. Chronic (long-term) 

inhalation exposure to inorganic As in humans is associated with irritation of the skin and 

mucous membranes. Chronic inhalation can also lead to conjunctivitis, irritation of the throat and 

respiratory tract and perforation of the nasal septum.29 Chronic oral exposure has resulted in 

gastrointestinal effects, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, and liver 

or kidney damage in humans. Inorganic As exposure in humans, by the inhalation route, has been 

shown to be strongly associated with lung cancer, while ingestion of inorganic As in humans has 

been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to bladder, liver, and lung cancer. EPA has 

classified inorganic As a Group A, human carcinogen.30

4.3.1.2 Cadmium (Cd)31

Breathing air with lower levels of Cd over long periods of time (for years) results in a 

build-up of Cd in the kidney, and if sufficiently high, may result in kidney disease. Lung cancer 

has been found in some studies of workers exposed to Cd in the air and studies of rats that 

inhaled Cd. The U.S. DHHS has determined that Cd and Cd compounds are known human 

carcinogens. The IARC has determined that Cd is carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined 

that Cd is a probable human carcinogen.

 29Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Arsenic. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available on the Internet at < 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg168.html#bookmark02>

30U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Integrated Risk Information System File for Arsenic. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm.

31Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. Public Health Statement for Cadmium. CAS# 

1306-19-0. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=46&tid=15>.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-30

4.3.1.3 Chlorine (Cl2)

The acute (short term) toxic effects of Cl2 are primarily due to its corrosive properties. 

Chlorine is a strong oxidant that upon contact with water moist tissue (e.g., eyes, skin, and upper 

respiratory tract) can produce major tissue damage.32 Chronic inhalation exposure to low 

concentrations of Cl2 (1 to 10 parts per million, ppm) may cause eye and nasal irritation, sore 

throat, and coughing. Chronic exposure to Cl2, usually in the workplace, has been reported to 

cause corrosion of the teeth. Inhalation of higher concentrations of Cl2 gas (greater than 15 ppm) 

can rapidly lead to respiratory distress with airway constriction and accumulation of fluid in the 

lungs (pulmonary edema). Exposed individuals may have immediate onset of rapid breathing, 

blue discoloration of the skin, wheezing, Rales, or hemoptysis (coughing up blood or blood-stain 

sputum). Intoxication with high concentrations of Cl2 may induce lung collapse. Exposure to Cl2

can lead to reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), a chemical irritant-induced type of 

asthma. Dermal exposure to Cl2 may cause irritation, burns, inflammation and blisters. EPA has 

not classified Cl2 with respect to carcinogenicity.

4.3.1.4 Chromium (Cr)33

Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent Cr (Cr+3) or hexavalent Cr (Cr+6). 

The respiratory tract is the major target organ for Cr+6 toxicity, for acute and chronic inhalation 

exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure 

to Cr+6, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary 

function, pneumonia, and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposures. 

Limited human studies suggest that Cr+6 inhalation exposure may be associated with 

complications during pregnancy and childbirth, but there are no supporting data from animal 

studies reporting reproductive effects from inhalation exposure to Cr+6. Human and animal 

studies have clearly established the carcinogenic potential of Cr+6 by the inhalation route, 

resulting in an increased risk of lung cancer. EPA has classified Cr+6 as a Group A, human 

carcinogen. Trivalent Cr is less toxic than Cr+6. The respiratory tract is also the major target 

organ for Cr+3 toxicity, similar to Cr+6. EPA has not classified Cr+3 with respect to 

carcinogenicity.

 32Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Chlorine. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=198&tid=36.

33U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Chromium VI. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-31

4.3.1.5 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

Hydrogen chloride is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation of the mucous membranes 

of the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat irritation, and 

levels of 50 to 100 ppm are barely tolerable for 1 hour.34 The greatest impact is on the upper 

respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to swelling and spasm of the 

throat and suffocation. Most seriously exposed persons have immediate onset of rapid breathing, 

blue coloring of the skin, and narrowing of the bronchioles. Exposure to HCl can lead to RADS, 

a chemically- or irritant-induced type of asthma. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive 

agents than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also 

be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to 

evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Hydrogen chloride has not been classified for 

carcinogenic effects.35

4.3.1.6 Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)36

Hydrogen cyanide is highly toxic by all routes of exposure and may cause abrupt onset of 

profound central nervous system, cardiovascular, and respiratory effects, leading to death within 

minutes. Exposure to lower concentrations of hydrogen cyanide may produce eye irritation, 

headache, confusion, nausea, and vomiting followed in some cases by coma and death. 

Hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant. By binding to mitochondrial cytochrome 

oxidase, it prevents the utilization of oxygen in cellular metabolism. The central nervous system 

and myocardium are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of cyanide.

4.3.1.7 Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)37

Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory 

damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) oral 

 34Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen 

Chloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmark02.

35U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Integrated Risk Information System File of Hydrogen 

Chloride. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This 

material is available electronically at .http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm.

36All health effects language for this section came from: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR). 2007. Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) (CAS#: 7782-50-5). Atlanta, 

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Mhmi/mmg8.html#bookmark02. 

37U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. EPA/600/8-89/002F. Environmental Criteria and Assessment 

Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 

1989.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-32

exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may also 

be useful for the treatment of osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause 

dental fluorosis. One study reported menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to 

fluoride via inhalation. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity.

4.3.1.8 Lead (Pb)38

The main target for Pb toxicity is the nervous system, both in adults and children. Longterm exposure of adults to Pb at work has resulted in decreased performance in some tests that 

measure functions of the nervous system. Lead exposure may also cause weakness in fingers, 

wrists, or ankles. Lead exposure also causes small increases in blood pressure, particularly in 

middle-aged and older people. Lead exposure may also cause anemia. 

Children are more sensitive to the health effects of Pb than adults. No safe blood Pb level 

in children has been determined. At lower levels of exposure, Pb can affect a child’s mental and 

physical growth. Fetuses exposed to Pb in the womb may be born prematurely and have lower 

weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in infancy, or in early childhood also may slow mental 

development and cause lower intelligence later in childhood. There is evidence that these effects 

may persist beyond childhood.

There are insufficient data from epidemiologic studies alone to conclude that Pb causes 

cancer (is carcinogenic) in humans. The DHHS has determined that Pb and Pb compounds are 

reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens based on limited evidence from studies in 

humans and sufficient evidence from animal studies, and the EPA has determined that Pb is a 

probable human carcinogen. 

4.3.1.9 Manganese (Mn)39

Health effects in humans have been associated with both deficiencies and excess intakes 

of Mn. Chronic exposure to high levels of Mn by inhalation in humans results primarily in 

central nervous system effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination 

were affected in chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by feelings of 

weakness and lethargy, tremors, a masklike face, and psychological disturbances, may result 

from chronic exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male 

 38Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Public Health Statement for Lead. CAS#: 

7439-92-1. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available on 

the Internet at < http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/phs13.html>.

39U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Manganese. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-33

workers afflicted with Manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. The EPA has classified Mn 

in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.

4.3.1.10 Mercury (Hg)

Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, methylmercury 

(MeHg). Because Hg is a persistent pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially 

the tissue of fish. When people consume these fish, they consume MeHg. In 2000, the NAS 

Study was issued which provides a thorough review of the effects of MeHg on human health.

40

Many of the peer-reviewed articles cited in this section are publications originally cited in the 

MeHg Study. In addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain other related and 

more recent publications to complement the material summarized by the NRC in 2000.

In its review of the literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most 

sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an RfD;

39 in particular 

NAS supported the use of results from neurobehavioral or neuropsychological tests. The NAS 

report noted that studies in animals reported sensory effects as well as effects on brain 

development and memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology studies. 

The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RfD are associated with the ability of 

children to learn and to succeed in school. They concluded the following: “The population at 

highest risk is the children of women who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood during 

pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to that population is likely to be sufficient to 

result in an increase in the number of children who have to struggle to keep up in school.”

The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 2000. Based on these 

and other studies, the NRC concluded that “Although the data base is not as extensive for 

cardiovascular effects as it is for other end points (i.e. neurologic effects) the cardiovascular 

system appears to be a target for MeHg toxicity in humans and animals.” The NRC also stated 

that “additional studies are needed to better characterize the effect of methylmercury exposure on 

blood pressure and cardiovascular function at various stages of life.”

Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000. The EPA did not to 

develop a quantitative dose-response assessment for cardiovascular effects associated with 

MeHg exposures, as there is no consensus among scientists on the dose-response functions for 

these effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as to the association 

between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular system effects. The pharmacokinetics of 

 40National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-34

some of the exposure measures (such as toenail Hg levels) are not well understood. The studies 

have not yet received the review and scrutiny of the more well-established neurotoxicity data 

base. 

The Mercury Study41 noted that MeHg is not a potent mutagen but is capable of causing 

chromosomal damage in a number of experimental systems. The NAS concluded that evidence 

that human exposure to MeHg caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier 

studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have controlled sufficiently for 

potential confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapajós River region in Brazil reported a 

direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair and DNA damage in lymphocytes; as 

well as effects on chromosomes.

42 Long-term MeHg exposures in this population were believed 

to occur through consumption of fish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely chromosomal 

aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg exposures similar to and above those seen in 

the Faroes and Seychelles populations.

Although exposure to some forms of Hg can result in a decrease in immune activity or an 

autoimmune response,

43 evidence for immunotoxic effects of MeHg is limited.39

Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a “possible” human 

carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer44 and in IRIS.

45 The existing 

evidence supporting the possibility of carcinogenic effects in humans from low-dose chronic 

exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies have found no significant 

association between Hg exposure and overall cancer incidence, although a few studies have 

shown an association between Hg exposure and specific types of cancer incidence (e.g., acute 

leukemia and liver cancer).39

 41U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress, EPA–HQ–OAR–

2009–0234–3054. December. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/hg/report.htm>.

42Amorim, M.I.M., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, and M. Lucotte. 2000. 

Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methyl mercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. 

Bras. Ciênc. 72(4): 497-507.

43Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.

44International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic 

Risks to Humans and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in the Glass 

Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene 

sulphonanilide. Br. J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited in NRC 2000).

45U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Methylmercury. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-35

There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal toxicity in humans from MeHg 

exposure. However, overall, human data regarding reproductive, renal, and hematological 

toxicity from MeHg are very limited and are based on either studies of the two high-dose 

poisoning episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological studies of 

chronic exposures at the levels of interest in this analysis. 

4.3.1.11 Nickel (Ni)46

Respiratory effects have been reported in humans from inhalation exposure to Ni. No 

information is available regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of Ni in humans, but 

animal studies have reported such effects. Human and animal studies have reported an increased 

risk of lung and nasal cancers from exposure to Ni refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. The EPA 

has classified nickel subsulfide as a human carcinogen and nickel carbonyl as a probable human 

carcinogen.

47,48 The IARC has classified Ni compounds as carcinogenic to humans. 

4.3.1.12 Selenium (Se)49

Acute exposure to elemental Se, hydrogen selenide, and selenium dioxide (SeO2) by 

inhalation results primarily in respiratory effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, 

pulmonary edema, severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. One Se compound, selenium 

sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. The EPA has classified elemental Se as a 

Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, 

probable human carcinogen. 

4.3.2 Additional SO2 Health Co-benefits

In addition to being a precursor to PM2.5, SO2 emissions are also associated with a 

variety of adverse health effects associated with direct exposure. Unfortunately, we were unable 

to estimate the health co-benefits associated with reduced SO2 in this analysis because we do not 

have air quality modeling data available. Therefore, this analysis only quantifies and monetizes 

the PM2.5 co-benefits associated with the reductions in SO2 emissions. 

 46 Nickel (IARC Summary & Evaluation , Volume 49, 1990), Please check if there are relevant to this 

sectorhttp://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol49/nickel.html

47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Subsulfide. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.

48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Nickel Carbonyl. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.

49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Selenium and Compounds. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 1999.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-36

Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory 

studies, the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Sulfur—Health Criteria (SO2 ISA) 

concluded that there is a causal relationship between respiratory health effects and short-term 

exposure to SO2.

50 The immediate effect of SO2 on the respiratory system in humans is 

bronchoconstriction. Asthmatics are more sensitive to the effects of SO2 likely resulting from 

preexisting inflammation associated with this disease. A clear concentration-response 

relationship has been demonstrated in laboratory studies following exposures to SO2 at 

concentrations between 20 and 100 ppb, both in terms of increasing severity of effect and 

percentage of asthmatics adversely affected. Based on our review of this information, we 

identified four short-term morbidity endpoints that the SO2 ISA identified as a “causal 

relationship”: asthma exacerbation, respiratory-related emergency department visits, and 

respiratory-related hospitalizations. The differing evidence and associated strength of the 

evidence for these different effects is described in detail in the SO2 ISA. The SO2 ISA also 

concluded that the relationship between short-term SO2 exposure and premature mortality was 

“suggestive of a causal relationship” because it is difficult to attribute the mortality risk effects to 

SO2 alone. Although the SO2 ISA stated that studies are generally consistent in reporting a 

relationship between SO2 exposure and mortality, there was a lack of robustness of the observed 

associations to adjustment for pollutants. We did not quantify these co-benefits due to data 

constraints.

4.3.3 Visibility Impairment Co-benefits

Reducing secondary formation of PM2.5 would improve levels visibility in the U.S. 

because suspended particles and gases degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing light (U.S. 

EPA, 2009). Fine particles with significant light-extinction efficiencies include sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil.51 Visibility has direct significance to people’s 

enjoyment of daily activities and their overall sense of well-being. Good visibility increases the 

quality of life where individuals live and work, and where they engage in recreational activities. 

Particulate sulfate is the dominant source of regional haze in the eastern U.S. and particulate 

nitrate is an important contributor to light extinction in California and the upper Midwestern 

 50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides—

Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC.

September. Available at: <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843>. 51 Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long-term variability of the composition of the haze in the 

United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network. CIRA Report, ISSN 0737-5352-32, Colorado 

State University.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-37

U.S., particularly during winter (U.S. EPA, 2009). Previous analyses52 show that visibility 

benefits can be a significant welfare benefit category. Without air quality modeling, we are not 

unable to estimate visibility related benefits, nor are we able to determine whether the emission 

reductions associated with this rule would be likely to have a significant impact on visibility in 

urban areas or Class I areas.

4.4 References

Abt Associates, Inc. 2012. BenMAP User’s Manual Appendices. Prepared for U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/models/BenMAPAppendicesOct2012.pdf>.

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.” Air 

Qual Atmos Health 2:169–176.

Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and 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. 

Gwinn, M.R., J. Craig, D.A. Axelrad, R. Cook, C. Dockins, N. Fann, R. Fegley, D.E. Guinnup, 

G. Helfand, B. Hubbell, S.L. Mazur, T. Palma, R.L. Smith, J. Vandenberg, and 

B. Sonawane. 2011. “Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air 

pollutants—summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.” Environ Health 

Perspect. Jan; 119(1): p. 125-30.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2009. Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits 

and Costs of the Clean Air Act: Air Toxics Case Study—Health Benefits of Benzene 

Reductions in Houston, 1990–2020. Final Report, July 14, 2009. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/dec09/812CAAA_Benzene_Houston_Final_Report_Jul

y_2009.pdf>.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Concentration-Response Relationship Between PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. Prepared 

for: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_tsd_expert_interview_summari

es.pdf>.

 52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 

to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-38

Krewski D, Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Ma R, Hughes E, Shi, Y, et al. 2009. Extended follow-up and 

spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution 

and mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA.

Lepeule 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. Jul;120(7):965-70. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air 

Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. 

Washington, DC. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html.

Roman, Henry A., Katherine D. Walker, Tyra L. Walsh, Lisa Conner, Harvey M. Richmond, 

Bryan J. Hubbell, and Patrick L. Kinney. 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.

Sisler, J.F. 1996. Spatial and seasonal patterns and long-term variability of the composition of 

the haze in the United States: an analysis of data from the IMPROVE network. CIRA 

Report, ISSN 0737-5352-32, Colorado State University.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available on the Internet at 

<http://envinfo.com/caain/mact/petroria.html >.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. September. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/cover.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2002. 

Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Developing Best Estimates of Dose-Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an 

EPA/SAB Workshop (Final Report). EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001. January. Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0

05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa-g.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC:

U.S. EPA. February. Available on the Internet at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923>.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-39

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Sulfur Oxides—Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. September. Available at: 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=198843>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Final Report). National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008d. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur–Ecological Criteria National (Final Report). National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139. 

December. Available at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=201485>.

U.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>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Carbon Monoxide. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. EPA/600/R-09/019F. January. Available at 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document: 

Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the ConcentrationResponse Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Research Triangle Park, NC. June. 

Available on the Internet at <www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010c. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions 

for Environmental Policy: A White Paper: SAB Review Draft. National Center for 

Environmental Economics December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0563-1.pdf/$file/EE-0563-1.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010e. Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses. EPA 240-R-10-001. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy Economics and Innovation. Washington, DC. December. Available on the Internet 

at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-

50.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. EPA-452/R-11-011. December. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf>.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-40

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011c. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011d. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. February. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/boilersriafinal110221_psg.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012a. 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>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Petroleum Refineries New Source Performance Standards Ja. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. June. Available at 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/refineries_nsps_ja_final_ria.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Technical Support Document: 

Estimating the Benefit per ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 sectors. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. February.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Characterizing Uncertainty in Particulate Matter Benefits Using Expert Elicitation. 

EPA-COUNCIL-08-002. July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/43B91173651AED9E85257487004EA6C

B/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-002-unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2000. An 

SAB Report on EPA’s White Paper Valuing the Benefits of Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction.

EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013. July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/41334524148BCCD6852571A70

0516498/$File/eeacf013.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2004c.

Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis Response to Agency Request on 

Cessation Lag. EPA-COUNCIL-LTR-05-001. December. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/39F44B098DB49F3C85257170005293E0/

$File/council_ltr_05_001.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2008. 

Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990–2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-

001. July. Available at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8

3/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4-41

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009b. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External 

Review Draft, December 2008). EPA-COUNCIL-09-008. May. Available on the Internet 

at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-

unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2009c. 

Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second External Review 

Draft, July 2009). EPA-CASAC-10-001. November. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead006be86

e/151B1F83B023145585257678006836B9/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-001-unsigned.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010a. 

Review of EPA’s DRAFT Health Benefits of the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of 

the Clean Air Act. EPA-COUNCIL-10-001. June. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/9288428b8eeea4c885257242006935a3/59e0

6b6c5ca66597852575e7006c5d09!OpenDocument&TableRow=2.3#2.>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2011. 

Review of Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper 

(December 10, 2010). EPA-SAB-11-011 July. Available on the Internet at 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/298E1F50F844BC23852578DC0059A616/$

File/EPA-SAB-11-011-unsigned.pdf>.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-1

SECTION 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

EPA prepares an EIA to provide decision makers with a measure of the social costs of 

using resources to comply with a regulation (EPA, 2010). The social costs can then be compared

with estimated social benefits (as presented in Section 4). As noted in EPA’s (2010) Guidelines 

for Preparing Economic Analyses, several tools are available to estimate social costs and range

from simple direct compliance cost methods to the development of a more complex market

analysis that estimates market changes (e.g., price and consumption) and economic welfare

changes (e.g., changes in consumer and producer surplus).

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) adopted a market-level 

analysis described in the Office’s resource manual (EPA, 1999a). The market approach uses a 

single-period static partial-equilibrium model to compare pre-policy market baselines with 

expected post policy outcomes in these markets. Key measures in this analysis include

■ market-level effects (market prices, changes in domestic production and

consumption, and international trade) and

■ social costs and their distribution between producers and consumers.

We also assessed the impacts on employment in the brick industry through a qualitative 

discussion and a quantitative analysis that is linked to the results of the market-level analysis. 

Finally, we assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of large and 

small ultimate parent companies that own affected BSCP facilities. To do this, we used a 

screening analysis required to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). 

5.1 Market Analysis

The partial-equilibrium analysis includes a market model that simulates how stakeholders 

(consumers and firms) might respond to the additional regulatory program costs. EPA used a 

perfectly competitive regional market model that accounts for the fact that brick shipments are 

not likely to be shipped long distances because of weight and transportation costs. In regional 

markets, it is more likely that only a few firms offer similar brick products and other market 

structures may be applicable (i.e., oligopoly). If market power exists, the use of a perfectly 

competitive model may understate the social costs of the final rule. Appendix A provides 

additional details about the economic model equations and parameters.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-2

5.1.1 Market-Level Results

Market-level impacts include the price and production adjustments for bricks. As shown 

in Table 5-1, the average national price under the final standards increases by 1.8%, or $4.37 per 

1,000 SBE, while overall domestic production falls by 1.5%, or 52 million bricks per year. These 

values are slightly higher than the Option 1 approach: the average national price increase for the 

Option 1 standards is 1.8%, or $4.27 per 1,000 SBE and U.S. brick production falls by about 50

million bricks. These values are lower than the Option 3 approach: the average national price 

increase for the Option 3 standards is 3.2% and U.S. brick production falls by about 90 million 

bricks.

Price increases are the highest in regions with high unit compliance costs. For example, 

the East North Central market price increase ($7.45 per 1,000 SBE) is associated with higher 

per-unit compliance costs ($16.56 per 1,000 SBE). Under the final standards, one region does not 

include any facilities with incremental compliance costs (New England). As a result, there are no 

market-level changes. For all of the census regions, the average regional price increases between 

0% and 3.7%. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 2.9% and 0 to 20 million 

bricks per year. Under the Option 1 standards, the average regional price increases between 0% 

and 3.8%. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 3.0%, or 0 to 16 million bricks 

per year. Under the Option 3 standards, the average regional price increases between 0% and 

5.8%. Regional domestic production falls between 0% and 4.6%, or 0 to 33 million bricks per 

year.

5.1.2 Social Cost Estimates

Under the final standards, the economic model suggests that industries are able to pass on 

$15.1 million (2011$) of the rule’s costs to U.S. households in the form of higher prices (Table 

5-1). Existing U.S. industries’ surplus falls by $12.1 million, and the total U.S. economic surplus 

loss is $27.2 million. Under the Option 1 standards, total U.S. economic surplus loss is $0.6

million lower ($26.6 million), and under the Option 3 standards, total U.S economic surplus loss 

is $21.4 million higher ($48.6 million). Because higher brick prices reduce consumption, the 

estimated compliance costs are lower than the engineering cost estimate that does not account for 

price responses. However, the differences are very small (i.e., less than 0.01%). 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-3

Table 5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final BSCP NESHAP 

Census Region

Incremental Unit 

Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE)

Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent

Consumer 

Surplus

Producer 

Surplus

Total 

Surplus

Option 2: Final Rule

New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Middle Atlantic $14.37 $5.51 1.7% −2,847 −1.3% −$1.2 −$0.9 −$2.1

East North Central $16.56 $7.45 2.5% −5,629 −2.0% −$2.1 −$1.7 −$3.8

West North Central $4.73 $2.63 0.9% −1,389 −0.8% −$0.5 −$0.4 −$0.9

South Atlantic $8.49 $4.34 1.9% −19,586 −1.5% −$5.6 −$4.5 −$10.1

East South Central $12.34 $6.85 3.7% −11,442 −2.9% −$2.6 −$2.1 −$4.7

West South Central $5.97 $3.32 1.4% −10,315 −1.2% −$2.9 −$2.4 −$5.3

Mountain $1.93 $0.54 0.1% −135 −0.1% −$0.1 $0.0 −$0.1

Pacific $3.51 $1.66 0.3% −179 −0.2% −$0.1 −$0.1 −$0.2

U.S. Average/Total $8.68 $4.37 1.8% −51,521 −1.5% −$15.1 −$12.1 −$27.2

(continued)
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-4

Table 5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final BSCP NESHAP (continued)

Census Region

Incremental Unit 

Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE)

Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent

Consumer 

Surplus

Producer 

Surplus

Total 

Surplus

Option 1

New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Middle Atlantic $11.28 $4.33 1.3% −2,236 −1.0% −$0.9 −$0.7 −$1.6

East North Central $16.56 $7.45 2.5% −5,628 −2.0% −$2.1 −$1.7 −$3.8

West North Central $4.73 $2.63 0.9% −1,389 −0.8% −$0.5 −$0.4 −$0.9

South Atlantic $7.09 $3.62 1.6% −16,347 −1.3% −$4.7 −$3.8 −$8.5

East South Central $12.67 $7.04 3.8% −11,755 −3.0% −$2.7 −$2.2 −$4.9

West South Central $7.16 $3.98 1.7% −12,382 −1.4% −$3.5 −$2.8 −$6.3

Mountain $8.16 $2.27 0.6% −572 −0.5% −$0.3 −$0.2 −$0.5

Pacific $3.51 $1.66 0.3% −179 −0.2% −$0.1 −$0.1 −$0.2

U.S. Average/Total $8.49 $4.27 1.8% −50,487 −1.4% −$14.8 −$11.8 −$26.6

(continued)
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-5

Table 5-1. Estimated Market Impacts of Final BSCP NESHAP (continued)

Census Region

Incremental Unit 

Compliance Costs

($/1,000 SBE)

Market Price Change U.S. Production Change Change in:

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent

Consumer 

Surplus

Producer 

Surplus

Total 

Surplus

Option 3

New England $0.00 $0.00 0.0% 0 0.0% $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Middle Atlantic $16.04 $6.15 1.9% −3,179 −1.5% −$1.3 −$1.0 −$2.3

East North Central $28.31 $12.74 4.2% −9,623 −3.4% −$3.6 −$2.8 −$6.4

West North Central $19.12 $10.62 3.8% −5,613 −3.1% −$1.9 −$1.5 −$3.4

South Atlantic $14.15 $7.23 3.1% −32,635 −2.5% −$9.3 −$7.4 −$16.8

East South Central $19.48 $10.82 5.8% −18,072 −4.6% −$4.1 −$3.3 −$7.4

West South Central $10.37 $5.76 2.5% −17,926 −2.0% −$5.1 −$4.1 −$9.1

Mountain $14.39 $4.00 1.1% −1,008 −0.9% −$0.5 −$0.4 −$0.8

Pacific $37.17 $17.55 3.2% −1,899 −2.5% −$1.3 −$1.0 −$2.3

U.S. Average/Total $15.62 $7.86 3.2% −89,954 −2.6% −$27.1 −$21.5 −$48.6
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-6

5.2 Employment Impacts of the Final Rule53

Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on 

job creation and employment. According to the Executive Order, “our regulatory system must 

protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science”

(Executive Order 13563, 2011). Although standard benefit-cost analyses have not typically 

included a separate analysis of regulation-induced employment impacts,54 during periods of 

sustained high unemployment, employment impacts are of particular concern and questions may 

arise about their existence and magnitude. This chapter provides a conceptual framework for 

considering the potential influence of environmental regulation on employment in the U.S. 

economy and discusses the limited empirical literature that is available. The chapter then 

discusses the potential employment impacts in the BSCP industry, as well as the environmental 

protection sector (e.g., for construction, manufacture, installation and operation of needed

pollution control equipment). Section 5.2.1 describes the economic theory used for analyzing 

regulation-induced employment impacts, discussing how standard neoclassical theory alone does 

not point to a definitive net effect of regulation on labor demand for regulated firms. Section 

5.2.2 presents an overview of the peer-reviewed literature relevant to evaluating the effect of 

environmental regulation on employment. Section 5.2.3 discusses macroeconomic net 

employment effects. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert 

panel on economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. Section 5.2.4 addresses the 

particular influence of this final rule on employment. Finally, Section 5.2.5 offers several 

conclusions.

5.2.1 Theory

The effects of environmental regulation on employment are difficult to disentangle from 

other economic changes and business decisions that affect employment, over time and across 

regions and industries. Labor markets respond to regulation in complex ways. That response 

depends on the elasticities of demand and supply for labor and the degree of labor market 

imperfections (e.g., wage stickiness, long-term unemployment). The unit of measurement (e.g., 

number of jobs, types of job hours worked, or earnings) may affect observability of that 

response. Net employment impacts are composed of a mix of potential declines and gains in 

different areas of the economy (i.e., the directly regulated sector, upstream and downstream 

 53 The employment analysis in this RIA is part of EPA’s ongoing effort to “conduct continuing evaluations of 

potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of [the Act]”

pursuant to CAA section 321(a). 54Labor expenses do, however, contribute toward total costs in EPA’s standard benefit-cost analyses.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-7

sectors, and the pollution abatement sector) and over time. In light of these difficulties, economic

theory provides a constructive framework for approaching these assessments and for better 

understanding the inherent complexities in such assessments. In this section, we briefly describe 

theory relevant to the impact of regulation on labor demand at the regulated firm, in the regulated 

industry, and in the environmental protection sector and highlight the importance of considering 

potential effects of regulation on labor supply, a topic addressed further in a subsequent section. 

Neoclassical microeconomic theory describes how profit-maximizing firms adjust their 

use of productive inputs in response to changes in their economic conditions.55 In this 

framework, labor is one of many inputs to production, along with capital, energy, and materials. 

In competitive output markets, profit-maximizing firms take prices as given and choose 

quantities of inputs and outputs to maximize profit. Factor demand at the firm, then, is 

determined by input and output prices.56,57

Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) have specifically 

tailored one version of the standard neoclassical model to analyze how environmental regulations 

affect labor demand decisions.58 Environmental regulation is modeled as effectively requiring 

certain factors of production, such as pollution abatement capital investment, that would not be 

freely chosen by profit-maximizing/cost-minimizing firms. 

In Berman and Bui’s (2001, p. 274–75) theoretical model, the change in a firm’s labor 

demand arising from a change in regulation is decomposed into two main components: output 

and substitution effects.59 For the output effect, by affecting the marginal cost of production, 

regulation affects the profit-maximizing quantity of output. The output effect describes how, if 

labor intensity of production is held constant, a decrease in output generally leads to a decrease 

in labor demand. However, as noted by Berman and Bui, although it is often assumed that 

regulation increases marginal cost, and thereby reduces output, it need not be the case. A 

regulation could induce a firm to upgrade to less polluting and more efficient equipment that 

 55See Layard and Walters (1978), a standard microeconomic theory textbook, for a discussion. 56See Hamermesh (1993), Chapter 2, for a derivation of the firm’s labor demand function from cost-minimization. 57In this framework, labor demand is a function of quantity of output and prices (of both outputs and inputs). 58Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) used a cost-minimization framework, which is a 

special case of profit-maximization with fixed output quantities. 59The authors also discuss a third component, the impact of regulation on factor prices but conclude that this effect is 

unlikely to be important for large competitive factor markets, such as labor and capital. Morgenstern, Pizer, and 

Shih (2002) used a very similar model, but they break the employment effect into three parts: 1) the demand 

effect, 2) the cost effect, and 3) the factor-shift effect.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-8

lowers marginal production costs, for example. In such a case, output could theoretically 

increase. 

The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects the 

labor intensity of production. Although increased environmental regulation generally results in 

higher utilization of production factors such as pollution control equipment and energy to operate 

that equipment, the resulting impact on labor demand is ambiguous. For example, equipment 

inspection requirements, specialized waste handling, or pollution technologies that alter the 

production process may affect the number of workers necessary to produce a unit of output.

Berman and Bui (2001) modeled the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on “quasifixed” pollution control equipment and expenditures that are required by the regulation and the 

corresponding change in labor intensity of production. Within the production theory framework, 

when levels of a given set of inputs are fixed by external constraints such as regulatory 

requirements, rather than allowing the firm to freely choose all inputs under cost-minimization 

alone, these inputs are described as “quasi-fixed.” For example, materials would be a “quasifixed” factor if there were specific requirements for landfill liner construction, but the footprint 

of the landfill was flexible. Brown and Christensen (1981) developed a partial static equilibrium 

model of production with quasi-fixed factors, which Berman and Bui (2001) extended to analyze 

environmental regulations with technology-based standards. 

In summary, because the output and substitution effects may be both positive, both 

negative, or some combination, standard neoclassical theory alone does not point to a definitive 

net effect of regulation on labor demand at regulated firms. Operating within the bounds of 

standard neoclassical theory, however, rough estimation of net employment effects is possible 

with empirical study, specific to the regulated firms, when data and methods of sufficient detail 

and quality are available. The available literature illustrates some of the difficulties for empirical 

estimation: studies sometimes rely on confidential plant-level employment data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau, possibly combined with pollution abatement expenditure data that are too dated 

to be reliably informative. In addition, the most commonly used empirical methods in the 

literature do not permit the estimation of net effects. These studies will be discussed at greater 

length later in this chapter. 

The above describes a conceptual framework for analyzing potential employment effects 

at a particular firm within a regulated industry. It is important to emphasize that employment 

impacts at a particular firm will not necessarily represent impacts for the overall industry; 

therefore, the theoretic approach requires some adjustment when applied at the industry level.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-9

As stated, the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how the output and 

substitution effects interact. 60 At the industry level, labor demand will be more responsive when 

(1) the price elasticity of demand for the product is high, (2) other factors of production can be 

easily substituted for labor, (3) the supply of other factors is highly elastic, or (4) labor costs are 

a large share of the total costs of production.61 So, for example, if all firms in the industry are 

faced with the same compliance costs of regulation and product demand is inelastic, then 

industry output may not change much at all, and output of individual firms may only be slightly 

changed.62 In this case, the output effect may be small, while the substitution effect will still 

depend on the degree of substitutability or complementarity between factors of production. 

Continuing the example, if new pollution control equipment requires labor to install and operate, 

labor is more of a complement than a substitute. In this case, the substitution effect may be 

positive, and if the output effect is small or zero, the total effect may then be positive. As with 

the potential effects for an individual firm, theory alone is unable to determine the sign or 

magnitude of industry-level regulatory effects on labor. Determining these signs and magnitudes 

requires additional sector-specific empirical study. To conduct such targeted research would 

require estimates of product demand elasticity; production factor substitutability; supply 

elasticity of production factors; and the share of total costs contributed by wages, by industry, 

and perhaps even by facility. For environmental rules, many of these data items are not publicly 

available, would require significant time and resources to access confidential U.S. Census data 

for research, and also would not be necessary for other components of a typical RIA. 

In addition to changes to labor demand in the regulated industry, net employment impacts 

encompass changes within the environmental protection sector and, potentially, in other related 

sectors, as well. Environmental regulations often create increased demand for pollution control 

equipment and services needed for compliance. This increased demand may increase revenue 

and employment in the environmental protection industry. At the same time, the regulated 

industry is purchasing the equipment, and these costs may affect labor demand at regulated 

firms. Therefore, it is important to consider the net effect of compliance actions on employment 

across multiple sectors or industries.

On the one hand, if the U.S. economy is at full employment, even a large-scale

environmental regulation is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on aggregate net employment.63

 60On Marshall’s laws of derived demand, see Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4.

61See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), p. 108. 

62This discussion draws from Berman and Bui (2001), p. 293. 63Full employment is a conceptual target for the economy where everyone who wants to work and is available to do 

so at prevailing wages is actively employed. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-10

Instead, labor would primarily be reallocated from one productive use to another (e.g., from 

producing electricity or steel to producing pollution abatement equipment). Theory supports the 

argument that, in the case of full employment, the net national employment effects from 

environmental regulation are likely to be small and transitory (e.g., as workers move from one 

job to another).

64 On the other hand, if the economy is operating at less than full employment,

economic theory does not clearly indicate the direction or magnitude of the net impact of 

environmental regulation on employment; it could cause either a short-run net increase or shortrun net decrease (Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011). An important fundamental research question 

is how to accommodate unemployment as a structural feature in economic models. This feature 

may be important in evaluating the impact of large-scale regulation on employment (Smith, 

2012). 

Affected sectors may experience transitory effects as workers change jobs. Some workers 

may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require time to search 

for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up wages to attract workers. It 

is important to recognize that these adjustment costs can entail local labor disruptions, and 

although the net change in the national workforce is expected to be small, localized reductions in 

employment can still have negative impacts on individuals and communities just as localized 

increases can have positive impacts.

Although the current discussion focuses on labor demand effects, environmental 

regulation may also affect labor supply. In particular, pollution and other environmental risks 

may affect labor productivity65 or employees’ ability to work. Although there is an 

accompanying, and parallel, theoretical approach to examining impacts on labor supply, similar 

to labor demand, it is even more difficult and complex to study labor supply empirically. There is 

a small, nascent empirical literature using more detailed labor and environmental data and quasiexperimental techniques that is starting to find traction on this question. These are described in 

Section 5.2.6.

To summarize the discussion in this section, economic theory provides a framework for 

analyzing the impacts of environmental regulation on employment. The net employment effect 

incorporates expected employment changes (both positive and negative) in the regulated sector, 

the environmental protection sector, and other relevant sectors. Using economic theory, labor 

demand impacts for regulated firms, and also for the regulated industry, can be decomposed into 

 64Arrow et al. (1996); see discussion on bottom of p. 8. In practice, distributional impacts on individual workers can 

be important, as discussed in later paragraphs of this section. 65For example, Graff Zivin and Neidell (2012).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-11

output and substitution effects. With these potentially competing forces, under standard 

neoclassical theory estimation of net employment effects is possible with empirical study 

specific to the regulated firms and firms in the environmental protection sector and other relevant 

sectors when data and methods of sufficient detail and quality are available. Finally, economic 

theory suggests that labor supply effects are also possible. In the next section, we discuss the 

available empirical literature.

5.2.2 Current State of Knowledge Based on the Peer-Reviewed Literature

In the labor economics literature, an extensive body of peer-reviewed empirical work

analyzes various aspects of labor demand, relying on the above theoretical framework.66 This 

work focuses primarily on the effects of employment policies, for example, labor taxes and 

minimum wage.67 In contrast, the peer-reviewed empirical literature specifically estimating 

employment effects of environmental regulations is very limited. In this section, we present an 

overview of the latter. As discussed in the preceding section on theory, determining the direction 

of employment effects in regulated industries is challenging because of the complexity of the 

output and substitution effects. Complying with a new or more stringent regulation may require 

additional inputs, including labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used 

by regulated firms (and firms in other relevant industries) in their production processes. 

Several empirical studies, including Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern et al.

(2002), suggest that net employment impacts may be zero or slightly positive but small even in 

the regulated sector. Other research suggests that more highly regulated counties may generate 

fewer jobs than less regulated ones (Greenstone, 2002; Walker, 2011). However, because these 

latter studies compare more regulated to less regulated counties, they overstate the net national 

impact of regulation to the extent that regulation causes plants to locate in one area of the 

country rather than another. List et al. (2003) found some evidence that this type of geographic 

relocation may be occurring. Overall, the peer-reviewed literature does not contain evidence that 

environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in 

the long run across the whole economy. 

Environmental regulations seem likely to affect the environmental protection sector 

earlier than the regulated industry. Rules are usually announced well in advance of their effective 

dates and then typically provide a period of time for firms to invest in technologies and process 

changes to meet the new requirements. When a regulation is promulgated, the initial response of 

 66Again, see Hamermesh (1993) for a detailed treatment. 67See Ehrenberg and Smith (2000), Chapter 4: “Employment Effects: Empirical Estimates” for a concise overview.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-12

firms is often to order pollution control equipment and services to enable compliance when the 

regulation becomes effective. This can produce a short-term increase in labor demand for 

specialized workers within the environmental protection sector, particularly workers involved in 

the design, construction, testing, installation, and operation of the new pollution control 

equipment required by the regulation (see Schmalansee and Stavins, 2011; Bezdek, Wendling, 

and Diperna, 2008). Estimates of short-term increases in demand for specialized labor within the 

environmental protection sector have been prepared for several EPA regulations in the past, 

including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) (U.S. EPA, 2011b).

5.2.3 Regulated Sector

Determining the direction of net employment effects of regulation on industry is 

challenging. Two papers that present a formal theoretic model of the underlying profitmaximizing/cost-minimizing problem of the firm are Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern, 

Pizer, and Shih (2002) mentioned above.

Berman and Bui (2001) developed an innovative approach to estimate the effect on 

employment of environmental regulations in California. Their model empirically examines how 

an increase in local air quality regulation affects manufacturing employment in the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which incorporates Los Angeles and its suburbs. 

During the time frame of their study, 1979 to 1992, the SCAQMD enacted some of the country’s 

most stringent air quality regulations. Using SCAQMD’s local air quality regulations, Berman 

and Bui identified the effect of environmental regulations on net employment in the regulated 

industries.68 In particular, they compared changes in employment in affected plants to those in 

other plants in the same 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) industries but in regions 

not subject to the local regulations.69 The authors found that “while regulations do impose large 

costs, they have a limited effect on employment” (Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269). Their 

conclusion is that local air quality regulation “probably increased labor demand slightly” but that 

“the employment effects of both compliance and increased stringency are fairly precisely 

estimated zeros, even when exit and dissuaded entry effects are included” (Berman and Bui, 

2001, p. 269).70 In their view, the limited effects likely arose because 1) the regulations applied 

disproportionately to capital-intensive plants with relatively little employment, 2) the plants sold 

 68Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the 

environmental protection sector. 69Berman and Bui include over 40 4-digit SIC industries in their sample. 70Including the employment effect of exiting plants and plants dissuaded from opening will increase the estimated 

impact of regulation on employment. This employment effect is not included in Morgenstern et al. (2002).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-13

to local markets where competitors were subject to the same regulations (so that sales were 

relatively unaffected), and 3) abatement inputs served as complements to employment.

Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) developed a similar structural approach to Berman 

and Bui’s, but their empirical application used pollution abatement expenditures from 1979 to 

1991 at the plant level, including air, water, and solid waste, to estimate net employment effects 

in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). Thus, in 

contrast to Berman and Bui (2001), this study identified employment effects by examining 

differences in abatement expenditures rather than geographical differences in stringency. They 

conclude that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in net 

employment in those sectors.

5.2.4 Environmental Protection Sector

The long-term effects of a regulation on the environmental protection sector, which 

provides goods and services that help protect the environment to the regulated sector, are 

difficult to assess. Employment in the industry supplying pollution control equipment or services

is likely to increase with the increased demand from the regulated industry for increased 

pollution control.71

A report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (2013) shows that domestic 

environmental services revenues grew by 41% between 2000 and 2010. According to U.S. 

Department of Commerce (2010) data, by 2008, there were 119,000 environmental technology 

(ET) firms generating approximately $300 billion in revenues domestically, producing $43.8 

billion in exports, and supporting nearly 1.7 million jobs in the United States. Air pollution 

control accounted for 18% of the domestic ET market and 16% of exports. Small and mediumsize companies represent 99% of private ET firms, producing 20% of total revenue (OEEI, 

2010).

5.2.5 Labor Supply Impacts

As described above, the small empirical literature on employment effects of 

environmental regulations focuses primarily on labor demand impacts. However, there is a 

nascent literature focusing on regulation-induced effects on labor supply, though this literature 

remains very limited because of empirical challenges. This new research uses innovative 

methods and new data and indicates that there may be observable impacts of environmental 

regulation on labor supply, even at pollution levels below mandated regulatory thresholds. Many 

 71See Bezdek, Wendling, and Diperna (2008), for example, and U.S. Department of Commerce (2010). 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-14

researchers have found that work-loss days and sick days, as well as mortality, are reduced when 

air pollution is reduced (EPA, 2011a). EPA’s study of the benefits and costs of implementing the 

clean air regulations used these studies to predict how increased labor availability would increase 

the labor supply and improve productivity and the economy (EPA, 2011a).Another literature 

estimates how worker productivity improves at the work site when pollution is reduced. Graff 

Zivin and Neidell (2013) reviewed this literature, focusing on how health and human capital may 

be affected by environmental quality, particularly air pollution. In previous research, Graff Zivin 

and Neidell (2012) used detailed worker-level productivity data from 2009 and 2010, paired with 

local ozone air quality monitoring data for one large California farm growing multiple crops,

with a piece-rate payment structure. Their quasi-experimental structure identified an effect of 

daily variation in monitored ozone levels on productivity. They found “that ozone levels well 

below federal air quality standards have a significant impact on productivity: a 10 parts per 

billion (ppb) decrease in ozone concentrations increases worker productivity by 5.5 percent.”

(Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2012, p. 3654). Such studies are a compelling start to exploring this 

new area of research, considering the benefits of improved air quality on productivity, alongside

the existing literature exploring the labor demand effects of environmental regulations.

5.2.6 Macroeconomic Net Employment Effects

The preceding sections have outlined the challenges associated with estimating net 

employment effects in the regulated sector and in the environmental protection sector and labor 

supply impacts. These challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment 

estimates for the whole economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, 

compliance spending, and environmental benefits propagate through the macro-economy. 

Quantitative estimates are further complicated by the fact that macroeconomic models often have 

very little sectoral detail and usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA is 

currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling 

economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. 

5.2.7 Information Specific to this Regulation 

In 2011, the ASM reported that 218 establishments (174 in NAICS 327121 and 44 in 

NAICS 327123) employed 8,000 people with a total annual payroll of about $300 million (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2013a, b). Approximately 12 million production labor hours were used to 

produce BSCP in 2011.

For this analysis, EPA quantified a subset of possible types of employment effects 

associated with the regulation:
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-15

■ additional labor requirements (full-time equivalents [FTEs]) associated with meeting 

the new regulation 

■ employment effect of facilities that may exit the BSCP industry 

As shown in Table 5-2, EPA estimates that the regulation will require an additional 

181,000 labor hours per year to operate control devices. This is equivalent to about 87 additional 

FTEs. The total estimated cost of these additional labor requirements to operate control devices

is $4.24 million per year. For Option 2, the recordkeeping and reporting labor hours are 

approximately 49,000 hours (see section 6.3), or 23 additional FTE. 

Table 5-2. Estimated Additional Labor Requirements 

Total Annual Labor Cost ($ million)

Required to Operate Control Devices

Total Annual Labor Hours Required

to Operate Control Devices

Option 1 $4.13 176,000

Option 2 Final $4.24 181,000a

Option 3 8.12 347,000

a

Excludes record keeping and reporting labor hours (49,000) (see section 6.3).

In Section 5.3, EPA estimates that the regulation may lead to two to four affected 

facilities exiting the BSCP industry. According the U.S. Census Bureau (2013b), the average 

number of employees per facility in 2011 was 37 (8,000/218 = 37). As a result, we estimate 74 to 

148 employees may need to retrain or relocate in anticipation of the new requirements or require 

time to search for new jobs.

5.2.8 Conclusion 

Although EPA has quantified two types of employment effects in this RIA, deriving 

estimates of how this regulation will affect net employment is a difficult task, requiring 

consideration of labor demand in both the regulated and environmental protection sectors. 

Economic theory predicts that the total effect of an environmental regulation on labor demand in

regulated sectors is not necessarily positive or negative. Peer-reviewed econometric studies that 

use a structural approach, applicable to overall net effects in the regulated sectors, converge on 

the finding that such effects, whether positive or negative, have been small and have not affected 

employment in the national economy in a significant way. Effects on labor demand in the 

environmental protection sector seem likely to be positive. Finally, new evidence suggests that 

environmental regulation may improve labor supply and productivity. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-16

5.3 Impacts on Small Entities

As mentioned above, EPA was particularly concerned about the final rule’s potential 

impacts to small entities, because 36 of 44 firms owning BSCP facilities have fewer than 750 

employees and thus meet the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) criterion for a small 

business in this industry. EPA thus conducted a screening analysis of the potential impacts by 

computing the ratio of control costs to firm sales revenues (i.e., a sales test). Based on the results 

of the screening analysis, EPA concluded that it is not able to certify that the rule will not have a 

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). As a result, EPA 

initiated a Small Business Advisory Review panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA). 

5.3.1 Small Business Impact Screening Analysis

As discussed in Section 2, EPA has identified 44 ultimate parent companies with 

facilities that will need new or modified control devices to meet new emission standards. 

Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 

(NAICS 327120) industry and the SBA (2013) defines a small business as having fewer than 750 

employees. There are 36 parent companies that are small businesses.

EPA assessed how the regulatory program may influence the profitability of ultimate 

parent companies by comparing pollution control costs to total sales (i.e., a “sales” test or costto-sales ratios [CSR]). To do this, we divided an ultimate parent company’s (i) total annualized 

compliance costs by its reported revenue:

Sales Testi = TTTTTTTTTT AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA CC CCCC CC CC CC ii

TTTTTTTTTT RR RR ii

(5.1)

As shown in Table 5-3, 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies had sales data available 

that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. The table shows that 58% of all businesses and 59% of 

small businesses affected by the final standards have CSRs of under 1%. 

EPA estimated the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close 

rather than comply with the regulation. The lower and upper bounds of the range were 

determined as follows:

■ Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.

■ Upper bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate 

parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent 

companies with CSRs between 3% and 5%.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-17

Table 5-3. Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results and Closure Estimates

Capital Cost 

(Million $)

Annual Cost 

(Million $)

Ultimate Parent Companies with Cost-to-Sales Ratios (CSRs)a

Estimatedb

Closures

Estimated 

Number of 

Facilities 

Closed

Less than 

1% 1% to 3% 3% to 5% 5% to 10%

Greater than 

10%

All Businesses (n=40) 

Option 1 $64 $27 53% 30% 10% 5% 3% 3–8 1–3

Option 2 Final $65 $27 58% 28% 3% 8% 5% 5–9 2–4

Option 3 $131 $49 35% 15% 13% 15% 23% 23–33 9–13

Small Businesses (n=32)

Option 1 $16 $7 53% 31% 9% 3% 3% 3–7 1–2

Option 2 Final 

Rule

$14 $7 59% 28% 3% 3% 6% 6–9 2–3

Option 3 $50 $19 34% 9% 16% 13% 28% 28–38 9–12

a The screening assessment was conducted for 40 of the 44 ultimate parent companies with annual sales data available. For small businesses, 32 of the 36 small 

entities had annual sales data available.

b EPA estimated a lower and upper bound as follows: Lower bound: All ultimate parent companies with CSR > 10%.; Upper bound: All ultimate parent 

companies with CSR > 10%, 50% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 5% and 10%, and 25% of ultimate parent companies with CSRs between 

3% and 5%.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-18

Under the final standards, EPA estimated that two to four brick manufacturing facilities 

are at significant risk of closure. Under the Option 1 standards, one to three brick manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure, and under the Option 3 standards, nine to thirteen brick 

manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

As shown in Table 5-3, 32 of the 36 small ultimate parent companies had sales data 

available that enabled EPA to compute a sales test. Under the final standards, EPA estimated that 

two to three small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the 

Option 1 standards, one to two small brick manufacturing facilities, and under Option 3

standards, nine to twelve small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.

All of the facilities at risk of closure were one-facility companies.

EPA has been informed that firms may have difficulty obtaining longer-term financing 

needed to buy the control equipment and make process changes needed to comply with the final

standards. Firms may not have cash on hand or the ability to convert assets into cash in order to 

make these purchases; as a result, firms would have to consider other long-term financing 

options. Affected firms are less likely to be publicly traded and thus would be more likely to 

consider debt versus equity options. The additional liabilities can put firms at additional risk of 

closure if market conditions do not improve during the period when the rule is adopted. In 

addition, if creditors are concerned about existing or future market conditions in the brick 

industry, they may be less willing to enter a loan contract or may require higher rates of interest 

than the 7% interest rate used to annualize the capital costs associated with the rule. EPA 

estimates of the range of the number of ultimate parent companies that may close rather than 

comply with the regulation may be an underestimate because of the difficulty in obtaining 

financing at a 7% interest rate. The estimates might be an overestimate if the industry has 

become more robust by 2018 when the control must be in place. The closure estimate did not 

include net effects on revenue due to price increases or reductions in sales attributable to the 

regulation.

5.3.2 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and convened a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (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.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-19

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...

5.3.2.1 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 HAPs listed for regulation in Section 

112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAPs and 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, a NESHAP for the BSCP 

source category is being finalized.

5.3.2.2 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAPs 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% of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with fewer 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 HAPs but must also 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).

5.3.2.3 Significant Issues Raised

The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests for comment that 

were included based on the SBAR Panel recommendations. See sections V and VI of this rule’s 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-20

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.

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 non-Hg 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 are revised from 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.A of this rule’s 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 health-based standards is presented in 

section V.B of this rule’s preamble. The EPA is not changing the numeric limit from proposal, 

because the proposed limit 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 non-Hg HAP metal/PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for 

Hg.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-21

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 non-Hg 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 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 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.C of this rule’s 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% of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best-performing 

sources with an FF-based 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% of sources for which we had test data, regardless 

of APCD type (see section V.A of this rule’s preamble for additional details).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-22

5.3.2.4 Small Business Administration Comments

The U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA’s 

proposals to set work practice standards and health-based 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, 

delaying promulgation of an 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: Following proposal, the EPA 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, it did allow the EPA to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability 

of Hg content in raw materials. As an initial point, it is doubtful that EPA had the option of 

delaying the promulgation of an Hg standard. Under CAA 112(e), EPA was scheduled to 

complete standards for all source categories by 2000. EPA’s 2003 Brick MACT rule was 

vacated, and that vacatur re-created EPA’s obligation to set standards for the Brick 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, EPA was obligated to sign a notice of final 

rulemaking to set standards for the Brick source category by September 24, 2015. 

 In any event, delay is not warranted. Following proposal, the EPA 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, 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, EPA’s conclusion is that there is no need 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% 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-23

Response: EPA standard engineering cost practice is to annualize over the expected life 

of the control equipment at 7%. EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm 

pays for a control device because each firm has a different set of potential options for financing 

including debt financing, equity financing, and financing through retained earnings. EPA 

acknowledges that some firms may not be able to borrow the money and some may close. 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, 

because 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.

5.3.2.5 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 (costto-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 are at 

significant risk of closure.

5.3.2.6 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.

5.3.2.7 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-HQOAR-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 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-24

facilities rather than two to three). However, for the various legal and technical reasons outlined 

in this rule’s 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/non-Hg 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 ten small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather 

than two to three). 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.

5.4 References 

Arrow, K.J. , M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads, R.W. Hahn, L.B. Lave, R.G. Noll, P.R. Portney, M. 

Russell, R. Schmalensee, V.K. Smith, and R.N. Stavins. 1996. “Benefit-Cost Analysis in 

Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation - A Statement of Principles.” American 

Enterprise Institute, The Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future. AEI Press. 

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Benefit Cost Analysis in 

Environmental.AEI.1996.pdf. 

Berman, E., and L.T.M. Bui. 2001. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence 

from the South Coast Air Basin.” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295. 

Bezdek, R.H., R.M. Wendling, and P. Diperna. 2008. “Environmental Protection, the Economy, 

and Jobs: National and Regional Analyses.” Journal of Environmental Management 

86(1): 63-79. 

Brown, R.S., and L.R. Christensen. 1981. “Estimating the Elasticities of Substitution in a Model 

of Partial Static equilibrium: An Application to U.S. Agriculture 1947 to 1974.” In

Berndt, E.R., Field, B.C. (Eds.), Modeling and Measuring Natural Resource Substitution.

Ehrenberg, R.G., and R.S. Smith. 2000. “Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy.”

Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Executive Order 13563. January 21, 2011. “Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General Principles of Regulation.”

Federal Register 76(14): 3821-3823. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-25

Graff Zivin, J., and M. Neidell. 2012. “The Impact of Pollution on Worker Productivity.”

American Economic Review 102(7): 3652-73.

Graff Zivin, J., and M. Neidell. 2013. “Environment, Health, and Human Capital.” Journal of 

Economic Literature 1(3): 689-730.

Greenstone, M. 2002. “The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: 

Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of 

Manufactures.” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175-1219.

Hamermesh, D.S. 1993. “Labor Demand.” Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 

Internal Revenue Service. SOI Tax Stats—Corporation Tax Statistics. Last updated April 2014. 

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Corporation-Tax-Statistics.

Layard, P.R.G., and A.A. Walters. 1978. “Microeconomic Theory.” McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

List, J.A., D.L. Millimet, P.G. Fredriksson, and W.W. McHone. 2003. “Effects of Environmental 

Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching 

Estimator.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 944-952.

Morgenstern, R.D., W.A. Pizer, and J-S. Shih. 2002. “Jobs Versus the Environment: An 

Industry-Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 

43(3): 412-436. 

Schmalansee, R., and R. Stavins. 2011. “A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis for the 

Transport Rule.” White Paper. Boston, MA: Exelon Corp. 

Smith, K. 2012. “Reflections—In Search of Crosswalks between Macroeconomics and 

Environmental Economics.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 6(2): 298-

317.

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. April 2010. “Environmental 

Industries Fact Sheet, using 2008 data from Environmental Business International, Inc.”

http://web.ita.doc.gov/ete/eteinfo.nsf/068f3801d047f26e85256883006ffa54/4878b7e2fc0

8ac6d85256883006c452c?OpenDocument. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 2011a. “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air 

Act from 1990 to 2020 Final Report–Rev. A.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport_rev_a.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2011b. “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5-26

U.S. International Trade Commission. March 2013. Environmental and Related Services. 

Publication No. 4389, Investigation No. 332-533. 

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4389.pdf.

Walker, R. 2011. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation.” American Economic 

Review: Papers and Proceedings 101(2).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-1

SECTION 6

STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS

6.1 Synopsis

This chapter summarizes the Statutory and Executive Order (EO) impact analyses 

relevant for the final NESHAP for Bricks and Structural Clay Products. For each EO and 

Statutory requirement, we describe both the requirements and the way in which our analysis 

addresses these requirements.

6.2 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 rule (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 rule, 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 VII of this rule’s 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 HAPs 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 co-benefits to be $83 million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3% discount rate and 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-2

$75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7% 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 rule, the EPA 

believes that the benefits of the BSCP rule will exceed the costs.

6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection requirements in the BSCP rule have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document that the EPA prepared for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2509.01. You can find copies of the ICR in the docket for the BSCP rule, 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 emission control devices 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 or 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 rule are 

owners or 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-3

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.

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. 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 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 for a routine control device maintenance 

exemption 30 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-4

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 9190 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of HAP, 8584 of which 

have at least one tunnel kiln. An estimated 2221 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 

rule. 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.) 

Because BSCP 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 report, records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following promulgation.

For the BSCP rule, 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.)

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-5

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.

6.4 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and convened a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (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.

6.4.1 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 HAPs listed for regulation in Section 

112(b). These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAPs and 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, a NESHAP for the BSCP 

source category is being finalized.

6.4.2 Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions standards for HAPs 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% of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with fewer 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 HAPs but must also take into account costs, 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-6

energy, and non-air environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed to comply 

with CAA section 112(d).

6.4.3 Significant Issues Raised

The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests for comment that 

were included based on the SBAR Panel recommendations. See sections V and VI of this rule’s 

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.

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 non-Hg 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 are revised from 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.A of this rule’s 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-7

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 health-based standards is presented in 

section V.B of this rule’s preamble. The EPA is not changing the numeric limit from proposal, 

because the proposed limit 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 non-Hg 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 non-Hg 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 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 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.C of this rule’s preamble for additional information).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-8

MACT floor pool: Several commenters supported the EPA’s proposal to calculate MACT 

floor standards for PM based on the top 12% of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best-performing 

sources with an FF-based 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% of sources for which we had test data, regardless 

of APCD type (see section V.A of this preamble for additional details).

6.4.4 Small Business Administration Comments

The U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA’s 

proposals to set work practice standards and health-based 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,

delaying promulgation of an 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: Following proposal, the EPA 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, it did allow the EPA to finalize Hg standards that account for the variability 

of Hg content in raw materials. As an initial point, it is doubtful that EPA had the option of 

delaying the promulgation of an Hg standard. Under CAA 112(e), EPA was scheduled to 

complete standards for all source categories by 2000. EPA’s 2003 Brick MACT rule was 

vacated, and that vacatur re-created EPA’s obligation to set standards for the Brick 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, EPA was obligated to sign a notice of final 

rulemaking to set standards for the Brick source category by September 24, 2015. 

 In any event, delay is not warranted. Following proposal, the EPA received additional 

information on the Hg content of raw materials from facilities in the BSCP industry. This 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-9

information did not provide the EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories 

based on the class or type of raw materials. However, 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, EPA’s conclusion is that there is no need 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% 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: EPA standard engineering cost practice is to annualize over the expected life 

of the control equipment at 7%. EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm 

pays for a control device because each firm has a different set of potential options for financing 

including debt financing, equity financing, and financing through retained earnings. EPA 

acknowledges that some firms may not be able to borrow the money and some may close. 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, 

because 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.

6.4.5 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 (costto-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 are at 

significant risk of closure.

6.4.6 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-10

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.

6.4.7 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-HQOAR-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 rule’s 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/non-Hg 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 ten small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather 

than two to three). 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.

6.5 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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 government or the private sector. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-11

6.6 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.

6.7 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 manufacturing facilities and not 

tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

6.8 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 or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in the memorandum “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-OAR2013-0291-0132.

6.9 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.

6.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTAA) and ICFR Part 

51NTTAA)

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. ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981, Part 10, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” is 

acceptable as an alternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not the 

instrumental procedures. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-12

ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Measurement of

Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources-Impinger Method,” is 

acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.

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),” is acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).

ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), “Standard Test Method for Determination of 

Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 

Spectroscopy,” 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). For the 

test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70% and less than 

or equal to 130%. 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 x 100)/%R.

6.10.16.11 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.)

Formatted: Heading 2,l2
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6-13

6.116.12 Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each house of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

7-1

SECTION 7

COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

7.1 Introduction

The EPA compared the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of morbidity 

and premature mortality among populations exposed to PM2.5 (Section 4) with the estimated 

annualized social costs (Section 5) and found that the benefits of the final rule outweigh the 

costs. The net benefits are likely higher since EPA was not able to monetize other environmental 

benefits from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAPs each year and ecosystem effects and 

visibility impairment associated with PM emissions.

7.2 Net Benefits of the Final Standards

Using a 3% discount rate, we estimate the total monetized benefits of the final standards 

to be $83 million to $190 million (Table 7-1). Using a 7% discount rate, we estimate the total 

monetized benefits to be $75 million to $170 million. The annualized costs are $27 million at a 

7% interest rate. The net benefits are $56 million to $160 million at a 3% discount rate for the 

benefits and $48 million to $150 million at a 7% discount rate.

Table 7-1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits (million 

2011$)

Total (3% Discount Rate) Total (7% Discount Rate)

Final Standards

Total Monetized Benefits $83 to $190 $75 to $170

Total Social Costsa $27

Net Benefits $56 to $160 $48 to $150

a The methodology uses the estimate social costs from the baseline year of economic model. As a result, the same 

value of social costs is used for both discount rates. All estimates are independently rounded to two significant 

figures, so estimates may not appear to sum in this table. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A-1

APPENDIX A

ECONOMIC MODEL

A.1 Baseline Data for Economic Model

Table A-1. Affected Production Statistics by Census Region 

Census Region 1,000 S.B.E Shipped in 2010

Estimated Affected 

Production Share within 

Regiona

East North Central 285,508 81%

East South Central 388,685 100%

Mid-Atlantic 213,583 69%

Mountain 114,154 50%

New England 37,034 0%

Pacific 74,563 85%

South Atlantic 1,307,601 92%

West North Central 183,247 100%

West South Central 891,232 100%

United States 3,495,657 90%

a To approximate the affected shares, EPA estimated affected production from kiln capacity and operating hours of 

major sources.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and U.S. EPA calculations.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A-2

Table A-2. Average Prices of Brick, Building or Common and Facing: 2010

Census Region

$ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Expressed in 2010 dollars

$ per 1,000 S.B.E.

Expressed in 2011 dollars

New England $379 $387

Middle Atlantic $324 $331

East North Central $297 $302

West North Central $272 $277

South Atlantic $227 $232

East South Central $183 $186

West South Central $225 $229

Mountain $355 $362

Pacific $541 $551

United States $248 $253

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Prices adjusted using the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product 

(GDP). 

A.2 Model Equations

Given the weight of bricks, transportation costs are high relative to value. For this reason, 

bricks are more likely to be bought and sold within regions because of the cost of transportation 

across long distances. We found that international trade represented only a small fraction of 

economic activity (see Section 2.5), and the latest Census data show that a majority of 

nonmetallic mineral products were shipped less than 100 miles (U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 2010).72 Approximately 75% of the total tons shipped are shipped in NAICS is 

less than 50 miles. A comparison of Census region average prices for bricks shows substantial 

differences between regions in the average price of brick products shipped. To the extent these 

price differences persist over time, these differences may be consistent with regional markets for 

brick. As a result, we use a perfectly competitive partial equilibrium model with nine regional 

brick markets (defined by census region). 

The market demand (D) in region (r) with regulation is:

QQDDDD

′ = QQDDDD × �1 + �

PP′

− 1� × ηη� (A.1)

The affected market supply (SA) in region (r) with regulation is:

 72The data include other products such as cement, so it is unclear from this data whether brick and structural clay 

products face the same transportation and shipment patterns as cement products.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A-3

QQSS

′ = QQSS × �1 + �

�PP′− �

− 1� × εε� (A.2)

The unaffected market supply (SU) in region (r) with regulation is:

QQSSSS

′ = QQSSSS × �1 + �

PP′

− 1� × εε� (A.3)

At the new with-regulation market-clearing price, quantities in A.1, A.2, and A.3 satisfy 

the following market equilibrium condition for each region (r):

QQDDDD

′ = QQSS

′ + QQSSSS′ (A.3)

As reported in Section 2, a single parent company accounts for a majority of estimated 

census region production. As a result, the price-taking model of firm decisions may not describe 

business decisions as well as other economic models of pricing behavior (i.e., oligopoly). If 

market power exists, the use of a perfectly competitive model may understate the social costs of 

the final rule.

A.3 Model Parameters

A.3.1 Demand 

All other things equal, consumers will likely buy fewer brick and structural clay products 

(BSCP) when the price of the product rises. The price elasticity of demand measures the size of 

the price response.73 Several factors influence how sensitive consumers are to price changes. If 

consumers can easily switch from one product to another because there are many close 

substitutes, demand tends to be more elastic. This is particularly true for more narrow market 

definitions (king versus modular brick) and over longer time horizons for the consumption 

decision (months versus years).

Currently, EPA has not identified statistically estimated price elasticities for BSCP. 

However, economy-wide simulation models have suggested the nonmetallic mineral industry 

demand elasticity is approximately −0.8. As are result, a 1% change in price results in a 0.8% 

decline in the quantity demanded (Ho, Morgenstern, and Shih, 2008). Because the market 

definition for the product is broad, the price response for BSCP is likely more elastic than this 

value.

 73The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in 

price.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A-4

A.3.2 Supply 

All other things equal, brick manufacturers will likely offer to sell more bricks when the 

price of bricks rises. The price elasticity of supply measures how much the quantity of bricks 

supplied responds to changes in the brick price.74 If manufacturers have a significant amount of 

flexibility to change the amount of bricks they produce when the price rises, the supply of bricks 

is elastic. In contrast, if the quantity of brick produced and supplied only changes by small 

amounts when the price rises, the supply of bricks is inelastic.

A key determinant of the price elasticity of supply is the length of the time period over 

which the product choices can be made. During shorter periods, it is more difficult for the firm to 

adjust inputs and increase production. Put another way, the firm typically has some fixed factors 

of production that limit its ability to respond to price changes. Rutherford (2002) developed an 

equation that can be used to derive a benchmark price elasticity of supply that considers the fixed 

factor value as a share of total product value. In our example, consider the case of two 

production inputs, one input that is fixed during a short time period75 and the other input that 

varies with production. 

Supply Elasticity = elasticity of substitution × fixed factor value share

1− fixed factor value share

(A.4)

To illustrate the approach, consider the value share of the fixed factor to be 50% to

approximately match the nonlabor value added reported in the U.S. Census data above. In cases 

where we lack data to estimate the elasticity of substitution, it is common to assume the elasticity 

is 1 (a Cobb-Douglas production function). This means that a 1% change in the ratio of factor 

prices would result in a 1% change in the ratio of factor shares. If we assume the elasticity of 

substitution between the fixed and variable input is one, the formula is

Supply Elasticity = 1 × 0.5

1 − 0.5 = 1 (A.5)

Using these values for the fixed factor’s value share and elasticity of substitution, the 

supply elasticity is approximately one. This means if the price of brick rose by 1%, brick 

manufacturers would plan to sell 1% more bricks to the market. Given the current low capacity 

utilization rates and excess capacity available in the industry, this value may underestimate how 

 74The measure is computed as the percentage change in quantity supplied divided by the percentage change in price. 75The fixed factor generally includes plant and capital equipment; factors that vary with production could include 

materials or labor.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A-5

responsive the brick industry would be to changes in the market price. As a result, the actual 

supply elasticity value may be elastic with a value higher than one. 

A.4 Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and Producer 

Surplus 

In partial equilibrium analysis, the social costs are estimated by measuring the changes in 

consumer and producer surplus. These values can be approximated using the market supply and 

demand model (Figure A-1). 

Figure A-1. Partial Equilibrium Measures of Social Cost: Changes Consumer and 

Producer Surplus

Change in consumer surplus = – [fghd + dhc]

Change in producer surplus = [fghd – aehb] – bdc

Change in total surplus = consumer surplus + producer surplus = – [aehb + dhc + bdc]

The change in consumer surplus is measured as follows:

∆CS = – [∆Q1 × ∆p] + [0.5 × ∆Q × ∆p]. (A.6)

Higher market prices and lower quantities lead to consumer welfare losses.

For affected supply, the change in producer surplus is measured as follows:

∆PS = [Q1 × ∆p] – [Q1 × unit cost increase] – [0.5 × ∆Q × (∆p –unit cost increase)]. (A.7)

Q1 Q0

P1

P0

h

c

a

$

Output

e

d

S1 : With Regulation

S0 : Without Regulation Price

Increase }

Unit Cost Increase g }

f

b
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

A-6

Higher unit costs and lower production level reduce producer surplus. The losses are 

offset to some degree because market prices tend to rise. In contrast, for unaffected supply, the 

change in producer surplus is:

∆PS = [Q0 × ∆p] + [0.5 × ∆Q × ∆p]. (A.8)

Higher prices increase producer surplus for unaffected producers in the U.S. and other 

countries. 
E.O. 12866_Brick & Clay 2060-AP69 Final_2015082420150923

6560-50-P

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), nonmercury (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 and other stakeholders 

(including small businesses), environmental groups, and other 

stakeholders, protects air quality and promotes public health by 

Style Definition: List Bullet 2 Indent: Indent: Left: 0.75",

Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering

Style Definition: Number Under Bullet: Indent: Left: 0.75",

Hanging: 0.25", No bullets or numbering

Style Definition: Bullet: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging:

0.25", No bullets or numbering

Style Definition: Bullets: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging:

0.25", No bullets or numbering

Style Definition: List Bullet: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging:

0.25", No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: 0.25", List tab

Style Definition: List Bullet 4: Indent: Left: 0.75", Hanging:

0.25", No bullets or numbering

Style Definition: Heading Level 3: No underline
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 2 of 454

reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA).

DATES: This action is effective on [insert date 60 days from 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. The incorporation 

by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [insert 

date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and 

Structural Clay ProductsBSCP 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 3 of 454

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 Brick and Structural Clay ProductsBSCP 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 4 of 454

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 5 of 454

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

μg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter

μg/m3 micrograms 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 Co-operation 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

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 6 of 454

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

μg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter

μg/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 Brick and Structural Clay ProductsBSCP

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 Brick and Structural Clay 

ProductsBSCP 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 Brick and Structural Clay ProductsBSCP and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 7 of 454

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 8 of 454

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 LowIncome 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 major stationary sources based on 

the performance of the MACT.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 new 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 9 of 454

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 instead ofor 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 10 of 454

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

option of demonstrating compliance using a BLD system instead 

ofor 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.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 11 of 454

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 

codea,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 

Formatted Table

Formatted: Table Footnote
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 12 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 13 of 454

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 [insert date 60 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. 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, William 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 14 of 454

Jefferson ClintonEPA 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.

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 major stationary sources based on 

the performance of the MACT.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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 15 of 454

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 District Court found 

that the vacatur of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 16 of 454

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-OAR2013-0291. 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 17 of 454

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 

Brick and Structural Clay ProductsBSCP 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, mercuryHg, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 18 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 19 of 454

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 20 of 454

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

andor 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 21 of 454

hour (lb/hr) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for nonHg 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 (μg/dscm) at 17-

percent O2. We are also issuing an emission limit for HClequivalent 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 

4.01 E-05 lb/ton

OR 5.45 E-04 lb/hr 

OR 7.67 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 

8891 μg/dscm at

17- percent O2 for 

each existing 

small tunnel kiln 

at facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent for 

collection of 

all tunnel kilns

at facility

-- --

Limits for new sources
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 22 of 454

Subcategory Acid gases

Total non-Hg HAP 

metals Hg

Large tunnel kilns

(≥ 10 tph)

-- 0.032018 lb/ton 

PM OR 0.00240014

gr/dscf PM at 17

-percent O2 OR 

0.0057 lb/hr nonHg HAP metals for 

each new tunnel 

kiln at facility

2.8 E-05 lb/ton OR 

3.4 E-04 lb/hr OR 

6.12 μg/dscm at

17- percent O2 for 

each new large 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

Small tunnel kilns

(< 10 tph)

-- 0.032030 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 

8891 μg/dscm at 

17- percent O2 for 

each new small 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 23 of 454

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.

5. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

We are requiring that owners andor 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 24 of 454

operator measure HF, HCl and Cl2 using one of the following 

methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic 

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 HCl-equivalent 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 non-Hg 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 25 of 454

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 sitespecific operating parameter values that represent the operating 

limits.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 26 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 27 of 454

determine the 3-hour block average pressure drop. The average of 

the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 

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 pressure drop during 

the PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test, the scrubber liquid 

pH and chemical addition rate (if applicable)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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 28 of 454

three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The average 

of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 

pressure drop, liquid pH, and liquid flow rate and chemical 

addition rate operating limits. If different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM/nonHg 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 HClequivalent 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 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 HCl-equivalent for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 29 of 454

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 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 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 HCl-equivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 30 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 31 of 454

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 the 

owner or operator performif VE are observed during any daily, 

15-minute VE observations in accordance with the procedures of 

EPA test conducted using Method 22, “Visual Determination of 

Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions 

from Flares,” of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. During the VE 

observations, the kiln must be operating under normal 

Formatted: Paragraph (1,2,3)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 32 of 454

conditions. If VE are observed, 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 EPA 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 EPA 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 and the owner or operator must, resume EPA Method 22 

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 EPA 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 33 of 454

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 34 of 454

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 35 of 454

scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above 

the minimum values established during the applicable performance 

test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure 

drop liquid pH at or above the minimum value established during 

the PM/non-Hg HAP metals performance test demonstrates

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. 

Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid pH and 

chemical (e.g., lime, caustic) addition rate at or above the 

minimum values 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 36 of 454

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 37 of 454

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 exemption.

• 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 38 of 454

• 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 39 of 454

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 40 of 454

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 andor 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 41 of 454

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)

PMbPM 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 --
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 42 of 454

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)a

Hg

(lb/ton)

PMbPM b

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/kg)c

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

-- -- 2.43 --

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 43 of 454

proper operation and maintenance procedures of the shuttle 

kilns. As discussed in section III.cC.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 andor 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 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 first-fire 

tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 44 of 454

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 HCl-equivalent 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 firstfire 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 45 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 46 of 454

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 pressure drop during 

the PM performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical 

addition rate (if applicable)liquid pH during the HF/HCl 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 47 of 454

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 pressure drop, liquid pH,

and liquid flow rate and chemical addition 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 peakstack

temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and the operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 48 of 454

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.

For sources with no APCD installed, we are requiring that 

the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent 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

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 HClequivalent is greater than the HBEL, we are requiring that the 

owner or operator determine the maximum process rate for which 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 49 of 454

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 

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 

peakstack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and 

operatingduring 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 for temperature.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 50 of 454

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 free-flowing 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 51 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 52 of 454

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 pressure drop, scrubber 

liquid pH, and scrubber liquid flow rate and chemical addition 

rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values established 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 53 of 454

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 pH and chemical (e.g., lime, 

caustic) addition rate 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 peakstack temperature of the tunnel 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 54 of 454

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 tunnel or roller kiln and 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 55 of 454

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 peakstack

temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and operating 

temperature of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press 

dryer; determine and record 3-hour block averages; and maintain 

it at or below the 3highest 4-hour block averages at or above 

the average stack temperature during the dioxin/furan 

performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln and , 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 56 of 454

performance test for the floor tile press dryer. 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 57 of 454

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 exemption.

• 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 58 of 454

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 

Formatted: Single Space
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 59 of 454

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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 60 of 454

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 productspecific 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 61 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 62 of 454

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 63 of 454

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 D.C. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 64 of 454

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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 65 of 454

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-by-case 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 well-performing 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 66 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 67 of 454

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 [insert 60 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register].

If the initial startup of the affected source is after 

December 18, 2014, but before [insert date 60 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register], then the compliance date 

is no later than [insert date 60 days from date of publication

in the Federal Register]. If the initial startup of the affected 

source is after [insert date 60 days from date of publication in 

the Federal Register], then the compliance date is immediately 

upon initial startup of the affected source. The compliance date 

for existing affected sources is no later than [insert date 3 

years and 60 days from date of publication in the Federal 

Register].

The initial performance test must be conducted within 180 

calendar days after the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 

63.8395 for BSCP affected sources of BSCP manufacturing and 40 

CFR 63.8545 for clay ceramics affected sources of clay ceramics
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 68 of 454

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?

As stated in the proposed rule preamble, the EPA is taking 

a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and 

data accessibility. Specifically, the The EPA is requiring 

owners andor operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing 

facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required 

performance test reports.

As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, data will be 

collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer 

using EPA-provided software. As discussed in the proposal, the 

EPA-provided software is an electronic performance test report 

tool called the ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report 

package that will be submitted to through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 69 of 454

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s

Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and instructions for 

use of the ERT can be found 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site at www.epa.gov/cdx.

The requirement to submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the 

ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by 

the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA ). As stated 

in the proposed preamble, the EPA believes, through this 

approach, industry will save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the 

performance test that the electronic submittal of the reports 

that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required 

to be keptaddressed in this rulemaking will increase the 

usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in hard copy.

As mentioneddata availability, will further assist in the 

proposed preambleprotection of public health and the environment 

and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 70 of 454

community. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying 

data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting 

errors and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public.

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 CAA-required 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 71 of 454

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 

accurateautomated review of performance test data that will be 

available on the EPA WebFIRE database. The public will also 

benefit.the electronically submitted data. Having these data 

publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. 

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 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 of 

performance tests using direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided softwarerequired by this rule, 

see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 72 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 73 of 454

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 

response-to-comments documents, available in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPAFormatted: Underline

Formatted: Bold
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 74 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 75 of 454

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-HQOAR-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 oxygenO2 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 oxygenO2 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 76 of 454

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 FF-based 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 more 

closely following proposal and found thatin 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 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 for which to set a MACT floor based on 

12 percent of the kilns in the entire category.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 77 of 454

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 FFbased 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 78 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 79 of 454

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 reranked 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 80 of 454

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 OKOklahoma deposit and an 

OHOhio 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 81 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 82 of 454

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 83 of 454

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-OAR2013-0290 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 84 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 85 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 86 of 454

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-HQOAR-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:

• Monitor scrubber 

liquid pH

• Monitor scrubber 

chemical feed rate (if 

applicable)

• Maintain at or above 

average pH/feed rate

during acid gas test

To demonstrate compliance 

with non-Hg HAP metals 

standard:

• Monitor scrubber 

pressure drop

• Maintain at or above 

average pressure drop

To demonstrate compliance 

with acid gas standard:

• Monitor scrubber 

liquid pH

• Maintain at or above 

average pH during acid 

gas 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 87 of 454

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

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–

Formatted: Keep with next
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 88 of 454

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 

 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. 2 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: 

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 75 FR 

32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 89 of 454

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 90 of 454

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 91 of 454

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.

 3 S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 92 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 93 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 94 of 454

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 is equivocal evidence ofare 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

• ChronicConsistent 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 is largely negative 

 4 Steenland, 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. 5 Beaumont, 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. 6 Bond 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. 7 Albert, 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. 8 Sellakumar, 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.

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Underline
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 95 of 454

including consists of two studies of the effects of pH on 

in vitro genetic test assays that reportedshowing 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 of 

questionable relevance tounreliable on the issue of 

possible carcinogenicity of HF and/or fluorides, in 

general, because there areof 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

• Respiratory tract effects of HF are likely similar to those 

observed after exposure to hydrogen bromide and HCl 

(Stavert et al., 1991).12

• 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 nonhuman primates have shown no evidence for carcinogenicity 

in respiratory tract as target tissue or other tissues.

 9 Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992. Clastogenicity of low 

pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat. Res. 268: 297-305. 10 Cifone, 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. 11 US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic 

SunstancesSubstances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for 

Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine. 2003. Available at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf. 12 Stavert, D.M., Archuleta D.C., Behr M.J., Lehnert, B.E. Relative acute 

toxicities of hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen bromide in 

nose- and pseudo-mouth-breathing rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 16: 636-655.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 96 of 454

• 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. 

TheFirst, 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’safety” requirement in CAA section 

112(d)(4). Further

Second, the ratios at mostthe 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, 

Formatted: Paragraph + 0 indent
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 97 of 454

which provides ana 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.13 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 healthbased 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 

 13 U.S. EPA, Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/glossary.htm (last 

updated Apr. 28, 2014)).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 98 of 454

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.”14 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.”15 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.

 14 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk 

Information System - Hydrogen chloride.

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal. 15 IARC, Hydrochloric Acid (Monograph), available at

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54/mono54-8.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 99 of 454

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 aan 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 100 of 454

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/m3))

was selected from chronic inhalation studies in rodents and was 

adjusted to reflect a lifetime of exposure (2.7 mg/m3) and 

extrapolated to a human equivalent concentration (6.1 mg/m3) 

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/m3) 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/m3. 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 101 of 454

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 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 preneoplastic 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.16

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 aan HBEL under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) for HCl.

 16 UNEPUnited 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.

Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Font: Courier New, 10 pt

Formatted: Font: Courier New, 10 pt
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 102 of 454

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.17

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.18 The commenter asserted that because these rat studies 

 17 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Hydrogen Chloride. 18 Albert, R.E., et al., Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction 

of nasal cancer in rats, 68(4) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 597 (1982).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 103 of 454

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.’”19 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 aan HBEL for HCl.

Response: The EPA’s chemical-specific toxicity assessments 

are derived using the EPA’s risk assessment guidelines and 

approaches that are well established and vetted through the 

 19 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 104 of 454

scientific community, and follow rigorous peer review 

processes.20 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.21

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 vulnerablesubject to 

change if additional data is developed.22 It is important to note 

that, for a “low confidence” label does not indicate that the 

 20 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS Guidance documents 

available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html. 21 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf. Science 

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/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 22 USU.S. EPA Air: Fate, Exposure, and Risk Analysis Website. Air Toxics 

Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1. 2004. Available at 

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

08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 105 of 454

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.23,24

 23 U.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. 24 U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration 

Processes. EPA/630/P-02/002F, Dec 2002.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 106 of 454

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 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 assessment25 for HCl included a 

comprehensive review of all the available toxicity data for HCl. 

 25 IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm

(Accessed on July 24, 2015)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 107 of 454

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 health-protective value than the RfC. The EPA’s

chronic inhalation RfC is 0.02 mg/m3, while California’s chronic 

inhalation reference exposure level (REL)REL is 0.009 mg/m3.26

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 1995.27 The REL is “the 

concentration level at or below which no health effects are 

 26 California 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). 27 California 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 108 of 454

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.”28 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.”29 The commenter asserted that Congress did not grant

the Administrator the authority to establish the threshold 

 28 EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based 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. 29 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 109 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 110 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 111 of 454

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.30 The 

approach favoring EPA benchmarks (when they exist) has been 

endorsed by the SAB31 and ensures use of values most consistent 

with well-established and scientifically-based EPA science 

policy.32

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 

 30 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf 31 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$

File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf 32 Science 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/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 112 of 454

EPA’s findings regarding the carcinogenic potential of HF are

insufficient and unreliable. Three commenters asserted that the 

EPA should not adopt HBEL for 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, well-defined 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 113 of 454

chemicals that included fluoride33 and noted that the EPA 

acknowledged data suggesting that those with occupational 

exposure to HF have greater than normal occurrences of cancer.34

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.35 One commenter stated that IRIS indicates 

no data are available to determine an RfC for chronic inhalation 

exposure to fluorine.36 This commenter further noted that IARC 

“has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans 

is not classifiable.”37 Another commenter stated that health-

 33 Gallerani, M., et al., Systemic and topical effects of intradermal 

hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998).

34 EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site: Hydrogen Fluoride, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html (last updated Oct. 18, 2013). 35 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride) (CASRN 

7782-41-4), http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 

2014). 36 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine, 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). Id. 37 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine 

at 8.

Formatted: Hyperlink Preamble
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 114 of 454

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,38 the database 

does provide evidence that HF has a mutagenic effect in animals. 

This conclusion was supported by other scientific reviews39 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.40

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 workplace41 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 

 38 EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 Pollutants, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last updated Jan. 6, 2015). 39 See, (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. 40 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. 41 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 115 of 454

years.”42 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 recommendation43 and with the 10X factor enacted by Congress 

in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).44 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 low-fluoride 

areas.45 The commenter asserted that the adverse effects of 

fluoride on children are likely to be more severe, and longlasting, compared with effects on adults.

 42 OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 43 National Research Council of the National Academies, Science and Decisions: 

Advancing Risk Assessment, at 190-93 (2009) (hereinafter “NAS, Science and 

Decisions”)). 44 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). 45 See Choi, A.L., et al., Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic 

Review and Meta-Analysis, 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 116 of 454

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.”46 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,47 that occupational studies of 

women exposed to fluoride identified increased rates of 

menstrual irregularities,48 and that animal studies have found 

that fluoride impairs reproduction and increases the rates of 

 46 OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 47 Massachusetts 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. 48 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds, EPA/600/8-89/002F (1988).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 117 of 454

fetal bone and teeth malformation.49 In addition, chronic 

inhalation of hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation and 

congestion of the nose and throat and bronchitis,50 and animal 

studies found increased rates of kidney and liver damage from 

hydrofluoric acid inhalation.51 Further, HF readily penetrates 

the skin, causing deep tissue layer destruction,52 and ingestion 

of HF may result in vomiting and abdominal pain, with painful 

necrotic lesions, hemorrhagic gastritis, and pancreatitis 

reported after significant exposure.53

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 2015.54 The commenter noted the 

1999 version required updating in part because it did not 

 49 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine; 

EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds.

50 CalEPA, Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer 

Chronic Reference Exposure Levels.

51 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds.

52 Burgher, 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). 53 CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): 

Hydrogen Fluoride/ Hydrofluoric Acid, 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html. 54 OEHHA 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 118 of 454

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)55 and the European Union (2002)56 that the 

available evidence does not support classifying HF as 

 55 Agency for Toxic SubstanceSubstances 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.”

56 European 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).”
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 119 of 454

“Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans”

or as having “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential”

(USU.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),57 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 experiments58

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 

 57 Lund K, Ekstrand J, Boe J, Søstrand 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.

58 Oencue, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 120 of 454

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)59 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 

 59 US 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 121 of 454

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 chemical-specific data in preference to default uncertainty 

factors when available (USU.S. EPA, 1994, 2011)60 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).61,62 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 (1999) have been “superseded” by the more 

recent guidelines released in February 2015, the EPA reviewed 

 60 U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation reference 

concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. (EPA/600/8-90/066F). 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=71993

61 U.S. EPA (2011) External Review Draft of Guidance for Applying Quantitative 

Data to Develop Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and 

Intraspecies Extrapolation http://www.epa.gov/raf/DDEF/index.htm U.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. 62 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 122 of 454

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 123 of 454

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.63 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.64 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 

 63 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine, 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). 64 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 124 of 454

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.’”65 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 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 aan

RfC for chronic inhalation exposure.66 The ATSDR MRL on which the 

proposed Cl2 threshold is based is a “screening value[] only” and 

“[is] not [an] indicator[] of health effects.”67 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 

 65 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176. 66 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine. 67 ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005 Update): Appendix F, 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last updated Nov. 30, 

2005).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 125 of 454

to a substance found at a site,” and “uncertainties are 

associated with [the] techniques” used to derive MRLs.68

One commenter stated that the MRL does not account for the 

potentially greater susceptibility of children, infants, and 

fetuses to Cl2 exposures69 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.70

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 

 68 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 14. 69 ATSDR, 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)). 70 CalEPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants Under the Children’s 

Environmental Health Protection Act, at 27-28.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 126 of 454

across the risk assessment community and by the EPA’s Risk 

Assessment Forum71 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,72 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.

 71 USU.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. 

72 Agency 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 127 of 454

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.73 The NAS recommended the EPA use “A consistent, 

unified 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 dose-response relationship 

in humans; that approach redefines the RfD or RfC as a riskspecific 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 decision-making is limited.”74

 73 See 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.

74 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 128 of 454

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.75 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 non-carcinogen exposures can pose health risks, 

NAS recommended that cancer and chronic non-cancer risk 

assessment use the same approach.76 The commenter noted that the 

use of RfCs for dose-response risk assessment of chronic noncancer 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 

 75 Janssen et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect 

Human Health. 76 NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8-9, 265-66.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 129 of 454

deleterious effects’ over a lifetime of exposure. In actual 

fact, these levels may pose appreciable risks.”77

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 non-cancer 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.

 77 Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to 

Protect Human Health at 10.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 130 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 131 of 454

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.”78 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 

 78 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 132 of 454

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.79 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 

 79 See, 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 

technology-based 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 (“[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 non-HAP 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 

non-HAP 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).”).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 133 of 454

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 cobenefits 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 134 of 454

comparison of the co-benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP with the co-benefits 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 135 of 454

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 Manufacturingclay ceramics manufacturing

facilities and BSCP Manufacturingmanufacturing facilities into 

the air. The chronic 90-day benchmarks used in the environmental 

risk screen for the acid gases are shown in Table 67 of this 

preamble and discussed in the following section.

TABLE 67. ACID GAS BENCHMARKS INCLUDED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK SCREEN

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 

Acid Gas Chronic 90-day Benchmark in μg/m3a

Hydrochloric acid - LOEL 50b

Hydrofluoric acid – Plant Community LOEL 0.5

Hydrofluoric acid – Plant Community LOEL 0.4

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 136 of 454

assessment methodologies.80 The chronic benchmark for HCl was 

based on a lowest observed effects level (LOEL) from a shortterm 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.81 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-hrhour estimated LOEL was extrapolated to a chronic 

benchmark by dividing by a factor of ten to yield 0.050 mg/m3, or 

50 μg/m3.

For HF, the EPA used two chronic benchmark concentrations 

for plants in the environmental screening analysis. The value of 

0.5 μg HF/m3 is based on the Washington State criterion for 

gaseous HF and represents a LOEL. The value of 0.4 μg HF/m3 is 

based on the Environment Canada criteria and also represents a 

LOEL.

 80 USU.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. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291-0044. 81 Lerman, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 137 of 454

To protect vegetation from adverse effects resulting from 

HF exposure, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the 

Environment82 recommends that HF concentrations not exceed 0.4 

μg/m3 over a 30- to 90-day period; HF concentrations can be 

higher for shorter exposures). Environment Canada83 defined the 

effect represented by the level of 0.4 μg HF/m3 as:

“The level above which there are demonstrated effects on 

human health and/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.

 82 CCME. 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/. 83 EC. (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/DQ

3.1.1.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 138 of 454

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 areaweighted 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 139 of 454

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.84

Although some studies indicate that HCl emissions could 

contribute to acidification around emission sources in certain 

environments,85 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

 84 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress, 2005. 

Also see - http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/index.html. 85 Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of Environmental Change. 

Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1187-1894.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 140 of 454

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. 

Formatted: Underline
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 141 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 142 of 454

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, 

INIndiana; Hanson Brick in Columbia, SCSouth Carolina; General 

Shale Brick in Denver, COColorado; and Cherokee Brick & Tile in 

Macon, GAGeorgia.86 Similarly, in the clay ceramics source 

category, only two of the sources are located in areas 

 86 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 143 of 454

considered “rural” by the United States Census Bureau: American 

Marazzi Tile in Sunnyvale, TXTexas, and the Kohler Wisconsin 

Plant outside of Sheboygan, WIWisconsin.87

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.88 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 noncancer, and acute risks, for both inhalation and multipathway 

exposure, the EPA also must assess the total risks.89 The EPA 

must aggregate health risk for each pollutant, and each type of 

health risk, to create a cumulative risk determination for an 

 87 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban 

Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html

(revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching plant location by city listed in address). 88 Memorandum 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 077, 2010). 89 CalEPA, 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)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 144 of 454

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.90

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 onin the 

determination of the HBEL for each source category. The limit 

 90 Responses to Public Comments on EPA’s National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units, vol. 1.1. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 145 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 146 of 454

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 HClequivalent 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 one1.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 147 of 454

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 148 of 454

In a sensitivity analysis of the impact of using a single year 

of meteorological data compared to 5 years,91 we found that 

modeled concentrations differed by less than 10 percent on 

average and, thus, the use of 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 

 91 USU.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. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291-0044.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 149 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 150 of 454

has urged the EPA to consider “specific locations of 

residences.”92 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 

 92 Memorandum from ScientificScience 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 151 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 152 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 153 of 454

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 HCl, HF, and Cl2, even if the sum of the exposures (converted 

into “equivalent” units) does not exceed the “HCl-equivalent”

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 154 of 454

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 “HClequivalents” 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 HCl-equivalent 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 HCl-equivalent 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. However, the information needed to perform such an 

analysis is generally not available. To address pollutant 

mixtures in the determination of the HBEL, the EPA generally 

used the same methodology used in RTR assessments, which is to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 155 of 454

follow the EPA’s mixture guidelines.93,94 This methodology has 

been formally peer reviewed by the SAB.95 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 TOSHI,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.

 93 US EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical 

Mixtures. EPA-630-R-98-002. September 1986. 94 US EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment 

of Chemical Mixtures. August 2000. 95 US EPA Science Advisory Board, 2010. SAB’s Response toReview 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/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 156 of 454

6. Ample Margin of Safety

Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s decision to 

set an HCl-equivalent HBEL, rather than set separate HBEL for 

HCl, HF, and Cl2. The commenter stated that, by setting one “HClequivalent 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 157 of 454

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.96 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.

 96 OEHHA, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 158 of 454

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 healthprotective emissions limits that would account for the multiple 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 159 of 454

acid gas pollutants emitted by the BSCP facilities. By 

converting the emissions of each acid gas or combination of acid 

gases (HCl, Cl2 and 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 andan 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 

worst-case 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 160 of 454

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.”97 The commenter 

 97 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 161 of 454

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.98

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).”99 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

 98 Webster’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.” 99 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 162 of 454

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.100 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.101 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 

 100 See, 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).

101 See, 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”).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 163 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 164 of 454

RfCthreshold values) and this conservative exposure scenario is 

consistent with the an “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 

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 short-term 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.102 The commenter 

 102 See, 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 165 of 454

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.

 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 “worst-case 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”).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 166 of 454

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-hrhour 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 HCl-equivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 167 of 454

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 HCl-equivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 168 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 169 of 454

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 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.”
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 170 of 454

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.”103

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 decision-making and 

does not reflect an ample margin of safety. The EPA is not 

required to regulate based solely on the results of a 

 103 Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: Review of EPA’s Draft at 6.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 171 of 454

conservative acute screening scenario which assumes that a 

person will be present at a specific location and during worstcase 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 172 of 454

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 

Arrays104 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 

 104 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 173 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 174 of 454

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-2013-0291,105 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 

 105 Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon Nizich and Keith Barnett, EPA. 

“Additional documents.” Dated June 25, 2015.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 175 of 454

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 176 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 177 of 454

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,106 so their emissions will not 

 106 For example, even assuming that lb/ton emissions are similar for BSCP 

periodic and tunnel kilns, a comparison of annual kiln design capacities (ton 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 178 of 454

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.

 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-HQOAR-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 

169168 tunnel kilns at 8584 facilities. In the sanitaryware industry sector, 

there are currently 5five first-fire shuttle kilns, compared to 11 first-fire 

tunnel kilns.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 179 of 454

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 short-term 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 180 of 454

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 malfunctions or can collect information on 

major sources’ malfunction and violation histories.107 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 

 107 See, e.g., EPA, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), 

www.epa.gov/echo. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 181 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 182 of 454

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 

CEMScontinuous 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 183 of 454

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 in our analysis, emissions were 

treated as gases for dispersion modeling purposes. At ambient 

concentrations the emissions of these acid gases exhibit 

dispersion behavior equivalent to ambient air. Further, this 

modeling approach is health protective by not allowing mass to 

be removed from the plume from direct contact with the ground 

and biotathe 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 184 of 454

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 (health-based 

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 

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 185 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 186 of 454

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, 

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 real-time 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 real-time public reporting of 

the monitoring data.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 187 of 454

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. 

Fence-line 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 188 of 454

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 D.C. 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 189 of 454

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 D.C. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 190 of 454

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-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 191 of 454

percent O2 for PM and Hg and lb/hr for Hg. For non-Hg 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 192 of 454

other is inconsistent, irrational, and unexplained; the same 

metric should 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 re-propose 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 193 of 454

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 

oxygenO2 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 oxygenO2 measurement are greatly magnified in the 

correction factor for kilns with high stack oxygenO2 content. The 

commenter suggested that the correction factor should be the 

average oxygenO2 content represented in the respective floors, 

17- percent O2 (based on a range of oxygenO2 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 194 of 454

Response: The EPA evaluated the oxygenO2 content of the runby-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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 195 of 454

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 startup. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 196 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 197 of 454

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 industry108 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”

 108 There are three distinct sectors within the clay ceramics manufacturing 

industry: ceramic floor tile manufacturing, ceramic wall tile manufacturing, 

and sanitaryware manufacturing. These comments address the regulation of 

hazardous air pollutantHAP emissions from ceramic floor tile manufacturing 

and ceramic wall tile manufacturing.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 198 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 199 of 454

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 

Decreeconsent decree is irrelevant to the EPA’s statutory 

authority and its limitations. The Consent Decreeconsent decree

entered in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.2d 300 (D.D.C. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 200 of 454

2012) (hereafter the “Consent Decreeconsent 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 Decreeconsent 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 unvalidatedinvalidated 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 201 of 454

defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The 

result of this regulation, if finalized, would be to hand nonmarket-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) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 202 of 454

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 

D.C. 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 CAA 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 203 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 204 of 454

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 205 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 206 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 207 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 208 of 454

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 209 of 454

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 first-fire 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 

ICRinformation 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 210 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 211 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 212 of 454

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 5five 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 

5five but is not the best performing unit based on the 

dioxin/furan ng/kg ranking. (Note the units of measure for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 213 of 454

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 5five 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 ng/Mgnanograms 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 oxygenO2 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 214 of 454

volumes. The third commenter agreed and noted that the proposed

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 oxygenO2 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 

TEFstoxic 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 215 of 454

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 ceramicsClay 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 °Cdegrees 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 216 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 217 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 218 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 219 of 454

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 78 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 costs include the costs of installing APCD as well 

as the costs for the testing and monitoring needed to 

demonstrate compliance.

TABLE 78. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS 

EXISTING SOURCESA (2011 DOLLARS)

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy)

Industry Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP 

metalsb Hg PM PM2.5c 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 220 of 454

b Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, nickel and selenium. c PM2.5 = 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 221 of 454

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 89 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts 

for existing sources under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and 

Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.

TABLE 89. SUMMARY OF SECONDARY IMPACTS FOR BSCP AND CLAY CERAMICS EXISTING 

SOURCESa

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 222 of 454

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 223 of 454

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 224 of 454

(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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 225 of 454

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.109 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 910 of this preamble.

TABLE 910. 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 cobenefits

(3 percent 

Discount)

Total monetized cobenefits

(7 percent 

Discount)

Directly 

emitted PM2.5

308 $83 to $190 $75 to $170

 109 Roman, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 226 of 454

PM2.5 precursors

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

NOXc -46 -$0.29 to -$0.66 -$0.26 to -$0.59

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

a All 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. b PM 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.

c These 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 227 of 454

using the approach published in Fann, et al. (2012),110 but they 

have since been updated to reflect the studies and population 

data in the 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) RIA.111 Specifically, we multiplied the benefit-per-ton 

estimates from the “Non-EGU Point other” category by the 

corresponding emission reductions.112 All national-average 

benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of 

the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the 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 benefit-per-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 

 110 Fann, 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. 111 U.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. 112 U.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.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 228 of 454

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 benefit-per-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 cobenefits 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 study113

and the extended Six Cities cohort study.114 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 

 113 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 Longterm Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American 

Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 114 Lepeule 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 229 of 454

Particulate Matter115 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 concentrationresponse 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 

 115 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 230 of 454

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 orand 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 benefit-per-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 

μg/m3. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 8 μg/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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 231 of 454

warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule 

because these results are not consistent with results from rules 

that hadmodel changes in air quality modeling.. 

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 

RIA116 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.

 116 U.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.Docket Item No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291-0087.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 232 of 454

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.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 233 of 454

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-HQOAR-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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 234 of 454

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 co-benefits 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 235 of 454

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 requirementsactivities in the 

BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP

have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR). 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; 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 236 of 454

(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.)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 237 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 238 of 454

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 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 239 of 454

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 for ato use the routine control 

device maintenance exemption 30alternative standard 120 calendar 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 240 of 454

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 9190 BSCP facilities that are currently major 

sources of HAP, 8584 of which have at least one tunnel kiln. An 

estimated 2221 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 241 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 242 of 454

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 reportreports, 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.)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 243 of 454

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 for the proposed rule andthat examines the 

impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with 

regulatory alternatives that could minimize that impact. The 

Formatted: Bold
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 244 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 245 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 246 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 247 of 454

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 non-Hg 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 arehave been revised 

fromsince 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 248 of 454

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 health-based 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 non-Hg 

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 non-Hg 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 249 of 454

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 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 250 of 454

• 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 FF-based 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. Small Business Administration (SBA)SBA Comments

The SBA’s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA’s proposals 

to set work practice standards and health-based 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:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 251 of 454

• 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: As an initial point, it is doubtfulThe EPA 

maintains that the EPA had the option of delaying thea 

delay in promulgation of an Hg standard. Under 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 recreated 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. 

In any event, delay is not warranted.

FollowingSecond, the EPA notes that following proposal, the 

EPAit 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 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 252 of 454

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 needbasis 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 253 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 254 of 454

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 255 of 454

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/non-Hg 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 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 webWorld Wide Web
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 256 of 454

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 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA),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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 257 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 258 of 454

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, Part 

10, “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 for the manual procedures only and not the instrumental 

procedures.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 259 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 260 of 454

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 x 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 261 of 454

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 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 

Formatted: Bold
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 262 of 454

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-OAR2013-0290-0241.)

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Page 263 of 454

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: ____________________________.

____________________________

Gina McCarthy,

Administrator.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 264 of 454

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 paragraphs (f)(1);paragraph (g)(74), newly 

redesignated (g)(85) and (l)(21);

b. Revising paragraph (h)(75);

c. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(83h)(85) through (9597) as 

paragraphs (g)(84h)(86) through (9698), respectively;

cd. Adding new paragraph (g)(83h)(85);

e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(87); and

f. Revising paragraph (m)(2).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(fg) * * *

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 265 of 454

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, and 

table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.

* * * * *

(gh) * * *

(7475) 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.

* * * * *

(83* * * * *

(85) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 266 of 454

tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ and tables 4 and 6 to subpart 

KKKKK.

* * * * *

(87* * * * *

(85) 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.

* * * * *

(lm) * * *

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 267 of 454

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?

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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 268 of 454

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

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 269 of 454

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 40 CFR 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as 

defined in 40 CFR 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 paragraph (b)(1) and (2).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 270 of 454

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 271 of 454

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 272 of 454

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 273 of 454

(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.

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 ofthat 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 274 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 275 of 454

(1) You must request ato use the routine control device 

maintenance exemptionalternative 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 exemption must 

not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each 

kiln.

(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 

exemptionalternative 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 276 of 454

complying with the applicable work practice 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 277 of 454

(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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 278 of 454

(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, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 279 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 280 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 281 of 454

§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.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 282 of 454

(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:

P

ER MP = P

ER MP = (Eq. 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:

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 283 of 454

































 +



 



















 = +

2

2

Cl

HCl

Cl

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E

RfC

RfC E E E

































 +



 



















 = +

2

2

Cl

HCl

Cl

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E

RfC

RfC E E E

(Eq. 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

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:

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 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

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 284 of 454

(iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific 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:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 































+













 = +

2

max 2

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC E Cap MP MP

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 































+













 = +

2

max 2

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC E Cap MP MP (Eq. 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

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 285 of 454

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:

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max ∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 5)

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 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 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.

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 286 of 454

( ) ( ) ( ) 































+















+

=

2

2

max

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq P (Eq. 6)

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 287 of 454

maximum process rates would become your operating limits for 

process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 288 of 454

(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-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by athe

routine control device maintenance exemptionalternative 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 289 of 454

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 athe routine control device maintenance 

exemptionalternative 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 290 of 454

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 291 of 454

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 

of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operationat 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 the 

EPA-454/R-98-015, “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,”

(EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) (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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 292 of 454

(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,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997)

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 293 of 454

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 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,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 294 of 454

(h(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 site-specific 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 295 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 296 of 454

§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.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 297 of 454

(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

(3v) of this section.

(1i) 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.

(2ii) 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. If no

(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.

Formatted: Paragraph (i,ii,iii)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 298 of 454

(A) 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; 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 Method 22 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 no VE are observed in 

30 consecutive daily testsone 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.

(3v) If VE aregreater than 10 percent opacity is observed 

during any test conducted using Method 229 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-74, 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) above, you may conduct a PM

Formatted: Paragraph (i,ii,iii)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 299 of 454

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 §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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 300 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 301 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 302 of 454

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 exemptionrequest developed as specified in 

§63.8420(d). If the control device maintenance was included in 

your approved routine control device maintenance 

exemptionrequest, 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 

exemptionalternative standard during the current semiannual 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 303 of 454

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.

(100) p c

p c

KU KU

DT DT

RM

+

+ = (100) p c

p c

KU KU

DT DT

RM

+

+ = (Eq. 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 exemptionalternative standard for the 

previous semiannual compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemptionalternative 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 

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 304 of 454

were no deviations from the emission limitations during the 

reporting period.

(7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-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-of-control during the reporting period.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 305 of 454

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 (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, 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 exemptionalternative 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 306 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 307 of 454

(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 

teststest 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/epa_home.asp)./).) Performance test data 

must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test 

data in an or an alternate electronic file format consistent 

with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site once the XML schema is available. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 308 of 454

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 309 of 454

(3) Records relating to control device maintenance and 

documentation of your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemptionrequest, if you request such an exemptionto 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 310 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 311 of 454

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 312 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 313 of 454

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 non-opacity 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 314 of 454

(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 

exemptionrequest 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, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 315 of 454

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 continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 316 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 317 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 318 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 319 of 454

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 health-based 

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 320 of 454

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

b. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 2.01 E-05 

kilogram per megagram 

(kg/Mg) (4.01 E-05 pound 

per ton (lb/ton)) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 7.67

micrograms per dry 

standard cubic meter 

(μg/dscm) at 17% O2; 

or

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 2.5 

E-04 kg/hr (5.45 E04 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 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2; 

or

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 8.45

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 0.0160089 kg/Mg 

(0.032018 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. PM emissions must 

not exceed 5.53.2

mg/dscm (0.00240014

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 6.12

μg/dscm at 17% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 1.6

E-04 kg/hr (3.4 E-04 

lb/hr).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 321 of 454

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

5. New or reconstructed 

small tunnel kiln (design 

capacity <10 tph of fired 

product), including all 

process streams.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.016015 kg/Mg 

(0.032030 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 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 8.45

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; and 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

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 322 of 454

For 

each... You must...

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 pressure dropliquid pH for 

each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure 

dropscrubber liquid pH established during the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metalsHF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which compliance was

demonstrated; and

b. 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; and

cb. 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; and in which compliance was 

demonstrated.

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test.

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).

Formatted Table

Merged Cells
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 323 of 454

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each work practice 

standard in the following table that applies to you:

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

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 324 of 454

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

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:

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 325 of 454

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 A1.

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 [Part 10] 

(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.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 326 of 454

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 327 of 454

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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 add-on 

control.

Establish the 

operating 

limit(s) for 

kiln process 

rate if the 

total facility 

maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

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 HClequivalent 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 

productionbased 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 firedproduct basis, of the 

affected source for 

each of the three test 

runs.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 328 of 454

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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 sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.

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 oneweek period that 

precedes the 

performance test and 

during the performance 

test.

c. Document the 

source and grade 

of limestone 

used.

Records of 

limestone

purchase.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 329 of 454

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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 

pressure drop.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during 

the PM/non-Hg 

HAP metals

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 sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 330 of 454

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

6. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a WS.

ba. 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 sitespecific liquid pH 

operating limit.

cb. 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/nonHg HAP metals tests, 

the highest of the 

average values become 

your site-specific 

operating limit.

Formatted Table

Merged Cells

Merged Cells

Merged Cells
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 331 of 454

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

7. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a WS that 

includes 

chemical 

addition to 

the water.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber 

chemical feed 

rate.

Data from the 

chemical feed

rate measurement 

device during 

the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

chemical feed rate, 

determine and record 

the block average 

chemical feed rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and 

determine and record 

the 3-hour block 

average of the recorded 

chemical feed rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific chemical 

addition rate operating 

limit.

87. 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 sitespecific 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 332 of 454

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

ii. You calculate the HClequivalent 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 HClequivalent 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

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 333 of 454

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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 

2.01 E-05 kg/Mg 

(4.01 E-05 lb/ton) 

of fired product or 

7.67 μg/dscm at 17% 

O2 or 2.5 E-04 

kg/hr (5.45 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 2.01 E-05 kg/Mg (4.01 E-05 

lb/ton) of fired product or 7.67

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 2.5 E-04 kg/hr 

(5.45 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 2.01 E-05 kg/Mg (4.01 E-05 

lb/ton) of fired product or 7.67

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 2.5 E-04 kg/hr 

(5.45 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 4.58 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 4.58 mg/dscm 

(0.0021 gr/dscf) at 17% O2.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 334 of 454

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 E04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2

or 8.45 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 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.45 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 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.45 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 

0.0160089 kg/Mg 

(0.032018 lb/ton) 

of fired product or 

5.53.2 mg/dscm

(0.00240014

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 

0.0160089 kg/Mg (0.032018 lb/ton)

of fired product or 5.53.2 mg/dscm 

(0.00240014 gr/dscf) at 17% O2; and

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 335 of 454

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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 0.0160089 kg/Mg 

(0.032018 lb/ton) of fired product 

or 5.53.2 mg/dscm (0.00240014

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 E05 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 6.12

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 6.12

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 6.12

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 1.6 E-04 kg/hr 

(3.4 E-04 lb/hr).

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 336 of 454

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 

0.016015 kg/Mg 

(0.032030 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 

0.016015 kg/Mg (0.032030 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 0.016015 kg/Mg 

(0.032030 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 E04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2

or 8.45 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 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.45 E-04 

kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr); and

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 337 of 454

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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 8891

μg/dscm at 17% O2 or 8.45 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:

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 338 of 454

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; and 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 A7; maintaining no VE from the DLA stack.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 339 of 454

For 

each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by...

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 pressure dropliquid 

pH data according to §63.8450(a); reducing the 

scrubber pressure dropliquid pH data to 3-hour 

block averages according to §63.8450(a); 

maintaining the average scrubber pressure 

dropliquid pH for each 3-hour block period at 

or above the average pressure dropscrubber 

liquid pH established during the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metalsHF/HCl/Cl2 performance test in which 

compliance was demonstrated; and

Formatted Table

Merged Cells
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 340 of 454

For 

each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by...

ii. 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; and

iiiii. 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; and in which 

compliance was demonstrated.

iv. If chemicals are added to the scrubber 

water, collecting the scrubber chemical feed 

rate data according to §63.8450(a); reducing 

the scrubber chemical feed rate data to 3-hour 

block averages according to §63.8450(a); 

maintaining the average scrubber chemical feed 

rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average scrubber chemical feed rate 

established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test.

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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 341 of 454

For 

each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by...

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 tuneup conducted with compliance report.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 342 of 454

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 [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication] in 

the Federal Register]

Comply with the 

applicable emission 

limitations and work 

practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to 

this subpart

[Insert date 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

2. New or reconstructed 

affected source and the initial 

startup of your affected source 

is after [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication] in 

the Federal Register]

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

[Insert date 3 

years and 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

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 §63.8480, 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

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 343 of 454

If you... You must... No later than...

As specified 

in...

1. Start up your 

affected source 

before [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication in the 

Federal Register]

Submit an 

Initial 

Notification

[Insert date 240

days from date of 

publication in 

the Federal 

Register]

§63.9(b)(2).

2. Start up your new or 

reconstructed affected 

source on or 

after [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication] in the 

Federal Register]

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 ato use the

routine control device 

maintenance 

exemptionalternative 

standard according to 

§63.8420(d)

Submit your 

request for the 

exemption

30120 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 344 of 454

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 out-ofcontrol 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.

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 345 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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]. 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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 346 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 347 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 348 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

§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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 349 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 350 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

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 calendar days 

prior.

Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of 

VE/Opacity

Test.

Notify Administrator 

30 calendar days 

prior.

No, not 

applicable.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 351 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 352 of 454

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. 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 outof-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, §§63.8425 

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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 353 of 454

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

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.

4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as 

follows:

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 354 of 454

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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 355 of 454

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

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

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 356 of 454

§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 

40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as 

defined in 40 CFR 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 357 of 454

§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 

first-fire ware, until such time as they begin to process firstfire ware.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 358 of 454

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 359 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 360 of 454

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 of 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 361 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 362 of 454

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 ato use the routine control device 

maintenance exemptionalternative 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 exemption must 

not exceed 4 percent of the annual operating uptime for each 

affected source.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 363 of 454

(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 

exemptionalternative 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 work practice 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 364 of 454

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 365 of 454

(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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 366 of 454

(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.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 367 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 368 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 369 of 454

(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:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 370 of 454

P

ER MP = P

ER MP = (Eq. 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:

G

ER MG = G

ER MG = (Eq. 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 

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 371 of 454

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:

( )

T P

M TEF

TEQ

r

n

i

i i

×

×

=

∑=1

( )

T P

M TEF

TEQ

r

n

i

i i

×

×

=

∑=1 (Eq. 3)

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:





 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E E E 



 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E E E (Eq. 4)

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 372 of 454

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 HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or roller 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5:

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 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 health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific 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.

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 373 of 454

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel 

or roller kiln, you must calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller 

kiln at your facility using Equation 6:

( ) ( ) ( ) 



 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC Emax Cap MP MP ( ) ( ) ( ) 



 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC Emax Cap MP MP

(Eq. 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:

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max ∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 7)

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 374 of 454

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 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 HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 

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.

( ) ( ) 



 





















+

=

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq Pmax (Eq. 8)

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 375 of 454

(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 HCl-equivalent 

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 HCl-equivalent 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.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 376 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 377 of 454

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-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by athe

routine control device maintenance exemptionalternative 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 athe routine control device maintenance 

exemptionalternative 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 378 of 454

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 379 of 454

(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 on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operationat 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 the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 380 of 454

EPA-454/R-98-015, “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,”

(EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) (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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 381 of 454

(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,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997)

(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,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, 

September 1997) (incorporated by reference, see §63.14). Record 

each adjustment.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 382 of 454

(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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 383 of 454

§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 site-specific 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 384 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 385 of 454

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 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 

Formatted: Paragraph (1,2,3)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 386 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 387 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 388 of 454

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 389 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 390 of 454

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 exemptionrequest developed as specified in 

§63.8570(d). If the control device maintenance was included in 

your approved routine control device maintenance 

exemptionrequest, 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 exemptionalternative standard during the current 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 391 of 454

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.

(100) p c

p c

SU +SU

DT +DT

RM= (100) p c

p c

SU +SU

DT +DT

RM= (Eq. 9)

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 exemptionalternative standard for the 

previous semiannual compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemptionalternative 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 

Field Code Changed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 392 of 454

emission limitations or work practice standards during the 

reporting period.

(6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was outof-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-of-control 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 393 of 454

(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 (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, 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 exemptionalternative 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 394 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 395 of 454

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 

teststest following the procedure specified in either paragraph 

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 396 of 454

(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/epa_home.asp)./).) Performance test data 

must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test 

data in or an alternate electronic file format consistent with 

the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s 

ERT Web site once the XML schema is available.. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 397 of 454

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 exemptionrequest, if you request such an exemptionto 

use the alternative standard under §63.8570(d).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 398 of 454

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 399 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 400 of 454

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 401 of 454

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 402 of 454

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 non-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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 403 of 454

(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 

exemptionrequest 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, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 404 of 454

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 

40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as 

defined in 40 CFR 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 405 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 406 of 454

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 A8), and as a surrogate for non-mercury metal HAP contained in 

the particulates including, but not limited to, antimony, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 407 of 454

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 408 of 454

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 freeflowing 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 the sorbent. 

Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 409 of 454

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 firstfire 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).

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 410 of 454

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 firstfire 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 6.18.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.36 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 411 of 454

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 (2.43 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:

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 pressure dropliquid pH for 

each 3-hour block period at or above the average pressure 

dropscrubber liquid pH established during the PMHF/HCl

performance test in which compliance was demonstrated; and

b. 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; and

Formatted Table

Merged Cells
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 412 of 454

cb. 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; and in which compliance was demonstrated.

d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber water, maintain the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block 

period at or above the average scrubber chemical feed rate 

established during the HF/HCl performance test.

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 average kiln peakstack

temperature for each 3-hour block period at or abovebelow the 

highest 4-hour average kiln peakstack temperature established 

during the dioxin/furan performance test; an average kiln 

peak temperature variation of -10% or less is allowed, as 

long as the temperature does not fall below 1,850 °F. 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 average kiln peakstack temperature for each 

3-hour block period at or abovebelow the highest 4-hour 

average kiln peakstack temperature established during the 

dioxin/furan performance test; an average kiln peak 

temperature variation of -10% or less is allowed, as long as 

the temperature does not fall below 1,850 °F 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 

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; and in which 

compliance was demonstrated; and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 413 of 454

equipped with 

a WS.

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

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 414 of 454

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

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

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 415 of 454

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-to-fuel 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 A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet 

of the APCD and prior 

to any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 416 of 454

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 [Part 10] 

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 417 of 454

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 A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet 

of the APCD and prior 

to any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 418 of 454

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 [Part 10] 

(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 A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet 

of the APCD and prior 

to any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 419 of 454

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 [Part 10] 

(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 addon control.

a. Establish the 

operating 

limit(s) for kiln 

process rate if 

the total 

facility maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

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 HClequivalent 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 420 of 454

b. Establish the 

stack temperature 

operating limit

for kiln peak 

temperature.. 

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

peakstack temperature,

and determine and 

record the block 

average temperature 

values for the three 

test runs, and 

determine and record 

the 3. The highest 4-

hour block average of 

the recordedstack

temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimummaximum

site-specific stack 

temperature operating 

limit.

5. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

that is 

complying 

with PM 

and/or Hg 

productionbased 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 421 of 454

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 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 sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 422 of 454

7. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped 

with a WS.

ba. 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 sitespecific liquid pH 

operating limit.

cb. 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.

Formatted Table

Merged Cells

Merged Cells

Merged Cells

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 423 of 454

8. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped 

with a WS 

that 

includes 

chemical 

addition to 

the water.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

scrubber chemical 

feed rate.

Data from the 

chemical feed 

rate measurement 

device during 

the HF/HCl 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the scrubber 

chemical feed rate, 

determine and record 

the block average 

chemical feed rate 

values for the three 

test runs, and 

determine and record 

the 3-hour block 

average of the recorded 

chemical feed rate 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific chemical 

addition rate operating 

limit.

98. 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 sitespecific activated 

carbon flow rate 

operating limit.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 424 of 454

109. Tunnel 

or roller 

kiln 

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission 

limit 

without an 

ACI system.

Establish the 

stack temperature 

operating limit

for kiln peak 

temperature..

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

peakstack temperature,

and determine and 

record the block 

average temperature 

values for the three 

test runs, and 

determine and record 

the 3. The highest 4-

hour block average of 

the recordedstack

temperature 

measurements for the 

three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimummaximum

site-specific stack 

temperature operating 

limit.

1110. 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 sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 425 of 454

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.

1211. 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 sitespecific operating 

limit.

1312. 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 sitespecific operating 

limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 426 of 454

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 427 of 454

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

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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 428 of 454

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

producvt.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 429 of 454

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

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 

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 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); 

and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 430 of 454

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 first-fire 

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 firstfire 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 431 of 454

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 firstfire 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

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 432 of 454

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 E05 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 433 of 454

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 E04 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 434 of 454

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.3 E04 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

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 

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 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of firstfire 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 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 435 of 454

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 firstfire 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 firstfire 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 

(2.43 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 (2.43 lb/ton) of firstfire 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 (2.43 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 436 of 454

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

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 437 of 454

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 

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 438 of 454

ii. Verifying that lime is freeflowing 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 pressure 

dropliquid pH data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the scrubber 

pressure dropliquid pH data to 3-

hour block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

scrubber pressure dropliquid pH for 

each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average pressure dropscrubber 

liquid pH established during the 

PMHF/HCl performance test in which 

compliance was demonstrated; and

ii. 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; and

iii.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; and in 

which compliance was demonstrated.

iv. If chemicals are added to the 

scrubber water, collecting the 

scrubber chemical feed rate data 

Merged Cells
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 439 of 454

according to §63.8600(a); reducing 

the scrubber chemical feed rate data 

to 3-hour block averages according 

to §63.8600(a); maintaining the 

average scrubber chemical feed rate 

for each 3-hour block period at or 

above the average scrubber chemical 

feed rate established during the 

HF/HCl performance test.

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 kiln peakstack

temperature data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln peak 

temperature data to 3-hour block 

averages according to 

§63.8600(a);and maintaining the 

average kiln peakstack temperature

for each 3-hour block period at or 

below the average peakhighest stack

temperature established during the 

dioxin/furan performance test in

which compliance was demonstrated.

5. Tunnel or 

roller 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 

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 HClequivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 440 of 454

or below the kiln process rate

determined according to 

§63.8595(g)(1).

iii. Collecting the kiln 

operatingstack temperature data 

according to §63.8600(a); reducing 

the kiln operating temperature data 

to 3-hour block averages according 

to §63.8600(a);and maintaining the 

average kiln operatingstack

temperature for each 3-hour block 

period at or abovebelow the average 

operatinghighest 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 441 of 454

PM performance test; and 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.

Conducting daily inspections to 

verify the presence of water flow to 

the wet control system; and

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.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 442 of 454

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 443 of 454

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 [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication] in 

the Federal Register]

Comply with the 

applicable emission 

limitations and work 

practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to 

this subpart

[Insert date 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

2. New or reconstructed 

affected source and the initial 

startup of your affected source 

is after [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication] in 

the Federal Register]

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

[Insert date 3 

years and 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

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:

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 444 of 454

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 [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication in the 

Federal Register]

Submit an 

Initial 

Notification

[Insert date 240

days from date of 

publication in 

the Federal 

Register]

§63.9(b)(2).

2. Start up your new or 

reconstructed affected 

source on or 

after [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication] in the 

Federal Register]

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 ato use the

routine control device 

maintenance 

exemptionalternative 

standard according to 

§63.8570(d)

Submit your 

request for the 

exemption

30120 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, 

Submit a 

notification of 

alternative 

fuel use

48 hours

following the 

declaration of a 

period of natural 

gas curtailment 

or supply 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 445 of 454

and you intend to use a 

fuel other than natural 

gas or equivalent to 

fire the affected kiln

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-ofcontrol 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.

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 446 of 454

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:

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].

Formatted Table
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 447 of 454

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 448 of 454

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 449 of 454

§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.

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 450 of 454

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 451 of 454

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 452 of 454

§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.

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 453 of 454

§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-ofcontrol.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 454 of 454

§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.
E.O. 12866_Brick & Clay 2060-AP69 Final_20150823

6560-50-P

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), nonmercury (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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 2 of 445

emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA).

DATES: This action is effective on [insert date 60 days from 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. The incorporation 

by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [insert 

date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 3 of 445

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 4 of 445

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 5 of 445

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 Co-operation 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

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 6 of 445

TTN Technology Transfer Network

μg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter

μg/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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 7 of 445

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 LowIncome Populations

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 8 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 9 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 10 of 445

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.

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 11 of 445

Requirement Capital cost Annual cost

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 

codea,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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 12 of 445

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 [insert date 60 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. Under section 307(b)(2) of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 13 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 14 of 445

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 15 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 16 of 445

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-OAR2013-0291. 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 17 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 18 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 19 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 20 of 445

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 nonHg 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 (μg/dscm) at 17-

percent O2. We are also issuing an emission limit for HCl-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 21 of 445

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 HClequivalent 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 

3.3 E-04 lb/ton OR 

0.0019 lb/hr OR 91

μg/dscm at 17-

percent O2 for 

each new small 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 22 of 445

Subcategory Acid gases

Total non-Hg HAP 

metals Hg

for each new 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

tunnel kiln at 

facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 23 of 445

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.

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 Sources-Isokinetic 

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 24 of 445

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 HCl-equivalent 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 non-Hg 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 25 of 445

• 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 sitespecific 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 26 of 445

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 site-specific 

pressure drop operating limit. Alternatively, the owner or 

operator may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 27 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 28 of 445

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 HClequivalent 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 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 HCl-equivalent 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 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 HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HBEL. 

If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator must
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 29 of 445

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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 30 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 31 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 32 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 33 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 34 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 35 of 445

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 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 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 36 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 37 of 445

• 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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 38 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 39 of 445

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) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 40 of 445

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 --
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 41 of 445

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)a

Hg

(lb/ton)

PM b

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/kg)c

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 42 of 445

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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 43 of 445

from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire 

tunnel kilns using one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 26A, “Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 

Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic 

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 HCl-equivalent 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 firstfire 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 44 of 445

• 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 45 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 46 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 47 of 445

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 site-specific operating 

limit.

For sources with no APCD installed, we are requiring that 

the owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HClequivalent 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

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 48 of 445

potential HCl-equivalent 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 

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 sitespecific 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 49 of 445

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 free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and 

to the APCD at all times. If lime is found not to be free 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 50 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 51 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 52 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 53 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 54 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 55 of 445

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 HClequivalent 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 56 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 57 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 58 of 445

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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 59 of 445

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 productspecific 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 60 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 61 of 445

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 62 of 445

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 D.C. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 63 of 445

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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 64 of 445

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-by-case 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 well-performing 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 65 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 66 of 445

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 [insert 60 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register].

If the initial startup of the affected source is after 

December 18, 2014, but before [insert date 60 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register], then the compliance date 

is no later than [insert date 60 days from date of publication

in the Federal Register]. If the initial startup of the affected 

source is after [insert date 60 days from date of publication in 

the Federal Register], then the compliance date is immediately 

upon initial startup of the affected source. The compliance date 

for existing affected sources is no later than [insert date 3 

years and 60 days from date of publication in the Federal 

Register].

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 67 of 445

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 paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving 

time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating 

redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 68 of 445

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 CAA-required 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 69 of 445

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 70 of 445

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 71 of 445

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 

response-to-comments documents, available in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPAHQ-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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 72 of 445

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-HQOAR-2013-0291 for more information on this analysis.)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 73 of 445

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 oxygencorrected 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 FF-based APCD, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 74 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 75 of 445

comment period sufficient to explain why some kilns without FFbased 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 76 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 77 of 445

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 reranked 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 78 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 79 of 445

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 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 80 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 81 of 445

Ceramics Manufacturing Final Rule” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0290 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 82 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 83 of 445

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-HQOAR-2013-0291 (BSCP Manufacturing).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 84 of 445

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:

• Monitor scrubber 

liquid pH

• Monitor scrubber 

chemical feed rate (if 

applicable)

• Maintain at or above 

average pH/feed rate

during acid gas test

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 acid gas standard:

• Monitor scrubber 

liquid pH

• Maintain at or above 

average pH during acid 

gas 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

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 

To demonstrate compliance 

with dioxins/furans 

standard:

To demonstrate compliance 

with dioxins/furans 

standard:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 85 of 445

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

standard

without an ACI 

system

• Monitor kiln operating 

temperature

• Maintain at or above 

average operating 

temperature during 

dioxin/furan test

• 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 86 of 445

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 

 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. 2 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: 

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 75 FR 

32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 87 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 88 of 445

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 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

 3 S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 89 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 90 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 91 of 445

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 

 4 Steenland, 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. 5 Beaumont, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 92 of 445

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

 6 Bond 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. 7 Albert, 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. 8 Sellakumar, 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. 9 Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992. Clastogenicity of low 

pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat. Res. 268: 297-305. 10 Cifone, 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. 11 US 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 93 of 445

• 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 nonhuman 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 94 of 445

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 

 12 U.S. EPA, Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/glossary.htm (last 

updated Apr. 28, 2014).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 95 of 445

proceeding with HBEL without a no observed adverse effect level 

(NOAEL) is unlawful. Another commenter stated the use of healthbased 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 

 13 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 96 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 97 of 445

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/m3))

was selected from chronic inhalation studies in rodents and was 

adjusted to reflect a lifetime of exposure (2.7 mg/m3) and 

extrapolated to a human equivalent concentration (6.1 mg/m3) 

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/m3) 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/m3. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 98 of 445

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 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 preneoplastic 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. 

 15 United Nations Environment Programme 2002, Organisation for Economic Cooperation 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 99 of 445

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 

 16 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Hydrogen Chloride.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 100 of 445

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.

 17 Albert, R.E., et al., Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction 

of nasal cancer in rats, 68(4) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 597 (1982).

18 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 101 of 445

Response: The EPA’s chemical-specific 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 

 19 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS Guidance documents 

available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html. 20 Science 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/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 102 of 445

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 

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

Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1. 2004. Available at 

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

08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 103 of 445

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 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 

 22 U.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. 23 U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration 

Processes. EPA/630/P-02/002F, Dec 2002.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 104 of 445

exposure concentrations. The IRIS assessment24 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 health-protective 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 

 24 IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm

(Accessed on July 24, 2015)

25 California 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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 105 of 445

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 

 26 California 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.

27 EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 106 of 445

“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 

 28 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 107 of 445

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 108 of 445

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 well-established 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 

 29 Science 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/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 109 of 445

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 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, well-defined 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 110 of 445

chemicals that included fluoride30 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-

 30 Gallerani, M., et al., Systemic and topical effects of intradermal 

hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998).

31 EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site: Hydrogen Fluoride, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html (last updated Oct. 18, 2013). 32 EPA, 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. 34 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine 

at 8.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 111 of 445

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 reviews36 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 workplace38 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 

 35 EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 Pollutants, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last updated Jan. 6, 2015). 36 See, 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. 37 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. 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 112 of 445

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 low-fluoride 

areas.42 The commenter asserted that the adverse effects of 

fluoride on children are likely to be more severe, and longlasting, 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 

 39 OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 40 National 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). 42 See Choi, A.L., et al., Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic 

Review and Meta-Analysis, 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 113 of 445

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 

 43 OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280. 44 Massachusetts 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. 45 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds, EPA/600/8-89/002F (1988). 46 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine; 

EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 114 of 445

inhalation of hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation and 

congestion of the nose and throat 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.”

 47 CalEPA, Technical Support Document for the Determination of Noncancer 

Chronic Reference Exposure Levels.

48 EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health Effects Associated 

with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. 49 Burgher, 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).

50 CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): 

Hydrogen Fluoride/ Hydrofluoric Acid, 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html. 51 OEHHA 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 115 of 445

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”

 52 Agency 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.”

53 European 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).”
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 116 of 445

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 experiments55

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 

 54 Lund K, Ekstrand J, Boe J, Søstrand 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.

55 Oencue, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 117 of 445

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 inter-

 56 US 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 118 of 445

human 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 chemical-specific 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 (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 

 57 U.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. 58 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 119 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 120 of 445

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 

 59 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine, 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014). 60 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 121 of 445

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 non-zero “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 

 61 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176. 62 EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine. 63 ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005 Update): Appendix F, 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last updated Nov. 30, 

2005).

64 ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 14.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 122 of 445

fetuses to Cl2 exposures65 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 Forum67 as a more reliable estimate of a threshold for 

 65 ATSDR, 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). 66 CalEPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants Under the Children’s 

Environmental Health Protection Act, at 27-28. 67 U.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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 123 of 445

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, 

 68 Agency 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.

69 See National Research Council of the National Academies, Toxicity Testing 

in the Twenty-First Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007); National 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 124 of 445

unified 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 dose-response relationship 

in humans; that approach redefines the RfD or RfC as a riskspecific 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 decision-making 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 

 Research Council of the National Academies, Phthalates and Cumulative Risk 

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

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 125 of 445

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 non-carcinogen 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 noncancer 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 

 71 Janssen et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to Protect 

Human Health. 72 NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8-9, 265-66. 73 Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk Assessments to 

Protect Human Health at 10.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 126 of 445

use similar approaches for chronic non-cancer 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 127 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 128 of 445

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 

 74 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 129 of 445

of these reductions as a basis for not setting risk-based 

standards for those other source categories.75 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 

 75 See, 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 

technology-based 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 (“[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 non-HAP 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 

non-HAP 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).”).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 130 of 445

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 cobenefits 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 co-benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 

and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP with the co-benefits 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 131 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 132 of 445

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

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 shortterm exposure (20 minutes) that related HCl concentration to 

“changes” in the leaves of 7 out of 8 plant species as reported 

 76 U.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.

Acid Gas Chronic 90-day Benchmark in μg/m3a

Hydrochloric acid - LOEL 50b

Hydrofluoric acid – Plant Community LOEL 0.5

Hydrofluoric acid – Plant Community LOEL 0.4
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 133 of 445

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 μg/m3.

For HF, the EPA used two chronic benchmark concentrations 

for plants in the environmental screening analysis. The value of 

0.5 μg HF/m3 is based on the Washington State criterion for 

gaseous HF and represents a LOEL. The value of 0.4 μg 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 

Environment78 recommends that HF concentrations not exceed 0.4 

μg/m3 over a 30- to 90-day period; HF concentrations can be 

 77 Lerman, 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. 78 CCME. 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/.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 134 of 445

higher for shorter exposures). Environment Canada79 defined the 

effect represented by the level of 0.4 μg HF/m3 as:

“The level above which there are demonstrated effects on 

human health and/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 

 79 EC. (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/DQ

3.1.1.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 135 of 445

HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the areaweighted 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 136 of 445

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.

 80 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress, 2005. 

Also see - http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/index.html. 81 Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of Environmental Change. 

Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1187-1894.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 137 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 138 of 445

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 colocated 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 139 of 445

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 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 

 82 U.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. 83 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban 

Area Criteria, https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html

(revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching plant location by city listed in address).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 140 of 445

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 noncancer, 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 

 84 Memorandum 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). 85 CalEPA, 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)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 141 of 445

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 

 86 Responses 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 142 of 445

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-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 143 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 144 of 445

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 1 year of meteorological data is 

 87 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 145 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 146 of 445

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 

 88 Memorandum 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 147 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 148 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 149 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 150 of 445

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 HCl, HF, and Cl2, even if the sum of the exposures (converted 

into “equivalent” units) does not exceed the “HCl-equivalent”

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 “HClequivalents” standards.

The commenter stated that since the EPA based the ratio for 

comparing HF and Cl2 emissions to HCl emissions on the RfC, REL 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 151 of 445

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 HCl-equivalent 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 HCl-equivalent 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 

 89 US EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical 

Mixtures. EPA-630-R-98-002. September 1986. 90 US EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment 

of Chemical Mixtures. August 2000.

91 US 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/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 152 of 445

organ. This process creates, for each target organ, a targetorgan-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 HCl-equivalent HBEL, rather than set separate HBEL for 

HCl, HF, and Cl2. The commenter stated that, by setting one “HClequivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 153 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 154 of 445

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 

 92 OEHHA, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 155 of 445

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 healthprotective 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 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; 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 156 of 445

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 

worst-case 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 157 of 445

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 

 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).

94 Webster’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.”
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 158 of 445

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 

 95 S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171. 96 See, 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 159 of 445

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 

 97 See, 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”).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 160 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 161 of 445

per year instead of using a default factor or emissions 

multiplier to account for higher-than-average short-term 

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 short-term 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 

 98 See, 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 “worst-case 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”).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 162 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 163 of 445

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 HCl-equivalent 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 HCl-equivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 164 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 165 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 166 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 167 of 445

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 decision-making 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 worstcase 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 

 99 Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: Review of EPA’s Draft at 6.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 168 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 169 of 445

chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value 

Arrays100 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 

 100 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 170 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 171 of 445

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 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 

 101 Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon Nizich and Keith Barnett, EPA. 

“Additional documents.” Dated June 25, 2015.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 172 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 173 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 174 of 445

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.

 102 For 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-HQOAR-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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 175 of 445

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 short-term risks and can accumulate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 176 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 177 of 445

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 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 

 103 See, e.g., EPA, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), 

www.epa.gov/echo.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 178 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 179 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 180 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 181 of 445

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 (health-based 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 182 of 445

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, 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 183 of 445

Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA should 

require fence-line ambient air quality monitoring that measures 

multiple pollutants in real-time 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 real-time 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. 

Fence-line 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 184 of 445

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 D.C. 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.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 185 of 445

(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 D.C. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 186 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 187 of 445

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 non-Hg 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 188 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 189 of 445

of three alternate compliance formats is so critical to the 

development of this standard that the EPA must re-propose 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 190 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 191 of 445

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 startup. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 192 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 193 of 445

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 industry104 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 

 104 There are three distinct sectors within the clay ceramics manufacturing 

industry: ceramic floor tile manufacturing, ceramic wall tile manufacturing, 

and sanitaryware manufacturing. These comments address the regulation of HAP

emissions from ceramic floor tile manufacturing and ceramic wall tile 

manufacturing.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 194 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 195 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 196 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 197 of 445

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 nonmarket-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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 198 of 445

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 

D.C. 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 199 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 200 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 201 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 202 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 203 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 204 of 445

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 205 of 445

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 first-fire 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 206 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 207 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 208 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 209 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 210 of 445

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 211 of 445

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 212 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 213 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 214 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 215 of 445

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 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 SOURCESA (2011 DOLLARS)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 216 of 445

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy)

Industry Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP 

metalsb Hg PM PM2.5c 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. c PM2.5 = 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 217 of 445

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 

SOURCESa

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 218 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 219 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 220 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 221 of 445

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.

 105 Roman, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 222 of 445

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 cobenefits

(3 percent 

Discount)

Total monetized cobenefits

(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

NOXc -46 -$0.29 to -$0.66 -$0.26 to -$0.59

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

a All 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. b PM 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. c These 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 223 of 445

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 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) RIA.107 Specifically, we multiplied the benefit-per-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 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 benefit-per-ton estimates for this category is 

 106 Fann, 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.

107 U.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.

108 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 224 of 445

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 benefit-per-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 cobenefits 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 study109

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.

 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 Longterm Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American 

Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 110 Lepeule 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 225 of 445

Considering a substantial body of published scientific 

literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and

clinical studies, the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter111 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 concentrationresponse 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 

 111 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 226 of 445

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 benefit-per-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 

μg/m3. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) study, 67 percent of the 

population is exposed above the LML of 8 μg/m3. It is important 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 227 of 445

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 

RIA112 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 

 112 U.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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 228 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 229 of 445

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-HQOAR-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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 230 of 445

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 co-benefits 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 231 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 232 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 233 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 234 of 445

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 235 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 236 of 445

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 237 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 238 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 239 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 240 of 445

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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 241 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 242 of 445

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 -
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 243 of 445

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 non-Hg 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 244 of 445

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 health-based 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 non-Hg 

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 non-Hg HAP metals/PM 

as well as Hg. The EPA is also finalizing limits in three 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 245 of 445

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 startup and shutdown, but suggested improvements 

to the standards to make them feasible for all tunnel 

kilns.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 246 of 445

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 FF-based 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 247 of 445

4. SBA Comments

The SBA’s Office of Advocacy supported the EPA’s proposals 

to set work practice standards and health-based 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 recreated 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 248 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 249 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 250 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 251 of 445

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/non-Hg 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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 252 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 253 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 254 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 255 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 256 of 445

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 x 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 257 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 258 of 445

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-OAR2013-0290-0241.)

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).
NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Page 259 of 445

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: ____________________________.

____________________________

Gina McCarthy,

Administrator.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 260 of 445

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)(85) through (97) as 

paragraphs (h)(86) through (98), respectively;

d. Adding new paragraph (h)(85);

e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(87); 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), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 261 of 445

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.

* * * * *

(85) 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 262 of 445

* * * * *

(87) 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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 263 of 445

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?

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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 264 of 445

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

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 265 of 445

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.

(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 paragraph (b)(1) and (2).

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 266 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 267 of 445

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 268 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 269 of 445

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 270 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 271 of 445

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.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 272 of 445

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 273 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 274 of 445

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, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 275 of 445

(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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 276 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 277 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 278 of 445

(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:

P

ER MP = (Eq. 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:

































 +



 



















 = +

2

2

Cl

HCl

Cl

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E

RfC

RfC E E E (Eq. 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 279 of 445

ECl2 = emissions of Cl2, kilograms (pounds) per hour

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 HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the 

facility using Equation 3:

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 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 health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 280 of 445

HCl, and Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 

4:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 































+













 = +

2

max 2

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC E Cap MP MP (Eq. 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:

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 5)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 281 of 445

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 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 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.

( ) ( ) ( ) 































+















+

=

2

2

max

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq P (Eq. 6)

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 282 of 445

(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.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 283 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 284 of 445

(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-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)).

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 285 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 286 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 287 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 288 of 445

(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,” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997)

(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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 289 of 445

(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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 290 of 445

§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 site-specific 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 291 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 292 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 293 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 294 of 445

(v) If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during 

any test conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A4, 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) above, you 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 §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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 295 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 296 of 445

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 297 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 298 of 445

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.

(100) p c

p c

KU KU

DT DT

RM

+

+ = (Eq. 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 299 of 445

(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 outof-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-of-control during the reporting period.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 300 of 445

(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 (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 301 of 445

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 302 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 303 of 445

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 304 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 305 of 445

(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.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 306 of 445

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 307 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 308 of 445

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 non-opacity 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 309 of 445

(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, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 310 of 445

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 continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 311 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 312 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 313 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 314 of 445

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 health-based 

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 315 of 445

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

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).

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 316 of 445

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 317 of 445

For 

each... You must...

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:

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 318 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 319 of 445

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

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:

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 A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet 

of the APCD and prior 

to any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 320 of 445

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 321 of 445

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 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 322 of 445

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

2. Tunnel kiln 

with no add-on 

control.

Establish the 

operating 

limit(s) for 

kiln process 

rate if the 

total facility 

maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

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 HClequivalent 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 

productionbased 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 firedproduct 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 sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 323 of 445

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 oneweek period that 

precedes the 

performance test and 

during the performance 

test.

c. Document the 

source and grade 

of limestone 

used.

Records of 

limestone 

purchase.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 324 of 445

For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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 sitespecific liquid pH 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 325 of 445

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 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/nonHg 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 sitespecific activated 

carbon flow rate 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 326 of 445

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

ii. You calculate the HClequivalent 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 HClequivalent 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 327 of 445

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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 E05 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 328 of 445

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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.

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 E04 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 329 of 445

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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 E05 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 330 of 445

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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).

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 E04 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 331 of 445

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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:

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 332 of 445

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 A7; maintaining no VE from the DLA stack.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 333 of 445

For 

each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by...

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 334 of 445

For 

each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by...

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.

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 335 of 445

For 

each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous compliance 

by...

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 tuneup 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 [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication in the 

Federal Register]

Comply with the 

applicable emission 

limitations and work 

practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to 

this subpart

[Insert date 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

2. New or reconstructed 

affected source and the initial 

startup of your affected source 

is after [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication in the 

Federal Register]

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 336 of 445

If you have a(n)... Then you must... No later than...

3. Existing affected source Comply with the 

applicable emission 

limitations and work 

practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to 

this subpart

[Insert date 3 

years and 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

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 §63.8480, 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 [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication in the 

Federal Register]

Submit an 

Initial 

Notification

[Insert date 240

days from date of 

publication in 

the Federal 

Register]

§63.9(b)(2).

2. Start up your new or 

reconstructed affected 

source on or 

after [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication in the 

Federal Register]

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 337 of 445

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 out-ofcontrol 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 338 of 445

You must 

submit... The report must contain...

You must submit 

the report...

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 339 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 340 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 341 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 342 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 343 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 344 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

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 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 345 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 346 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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 outof-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, §§63.8425 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 347 of 445

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ?

§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.

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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 348 of 445

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

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 349 of 445

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

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 350 of 445

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 

40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as 

defined in 40 CFR 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 351 of 445

(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 

first-fire ware, until such time as they begin to process firstfire 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 352 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 353 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 354 of 445

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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 355 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 356 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 357 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 358 of 445

(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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 359 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 360 of 445

(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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 361 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 362 of 445

§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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 363 of 445

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:

P

ER MP = (Eq. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 364 of 445

calculate your mass emissions per unit of first-fire glaze 

sprayed (dry weight basis) for each test run using Equation 2:

G

ER MG = (Eq. 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:

( )

T P

M TEF

TEQ

r

n

i

i i

×

×

=

∑=1

(Eq. 3)

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 365 of 445

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:





 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i HCl HF RfC

RfC E E E (Eq. 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 HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or roller 

kilns at the facility using Equation 5:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 366 of 445

∑=

=

n

i

Etotal Ei

1

(Eq. 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 health-based standard in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(g) You must establish each site-specific 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 HClequivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller 

kiln at your facility using Equation 6:

( ) ( ) ( ) 



 



















 = +

HF

HCl

i i iHCl iHF RfC

RfC Emax Cap MP MP (Eq. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 367 of 445

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:

∑=

=

n

i

E total E i

1

max max (Eq. 7)

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent 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 HCl-equivalent 

emissions (Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 368 of 445

become your operating limit for process rate and must be 

included in your OM&M plan.

( ) ( ) 



 





















+

=

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq Pmax (Eq. 8)

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 HCl-equivalent 

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 HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HClequivalent limit. The maximum process rates would become your 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 369 of 445

operating limits for process rate and must be included in your 

OM&M plan.

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 370 of 445

(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-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)).

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 371 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 372 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 373 of 445

(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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 374 of 445

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 375 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 376 of 445

(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 site-specific 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 377 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 378 of 445

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 379 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 380 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 381 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 382 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 383 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 384 of 445

(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.

(100) p c

p c

SU +SU

DT +DT

RM= (Eq. 9)

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 385 of 445

(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 outof-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-of-control 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 386 of 445

(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 (low-level) and high-level checks.

(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-ofcontrol, 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 387 of 445

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 388 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 389 of 445

(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 commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 390 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 391 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 392 of 445

(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 393 of 445

(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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 394 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 395 of 445

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 non-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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 396 of 445

(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, light-scattering, lighttransmittance, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 397 of 445

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 

40 CFR 63.9824, or brick and structural clay products (BSCP), as 

defined in 40 CFR 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 398 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 399 of 445

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-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 400 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 401 of 445

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 freeflowing 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 the sorbent. 

Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 402 of 445

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 firstfire 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 403 of 445

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 firstfire 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 404 of 445

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:

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 405 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 406 of 445

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 407 of 445

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 

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Develop and use a temperature profile

for each kiln or dryer; and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 408 of 445

dryer or ceramic 

tile spray dryer 

during periods

of routine 

control device 

maintenance

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 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 A1.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 409 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 410 of 445

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 A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet 

of the APCD and prior 

to any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 411 of 445

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 A1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet 

of the APCD and prior 

to any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 412 of 445

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 addon control.

a. Establish the 

operating 

limit(s) for kiln 

process rate if 

the total 

facility maximum 

potential HClequivalent 

emissions are 

greater than the 

HCl-equivalent 

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 HClequivalent 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 413 of 445

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 

productionbased 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 414 of 445

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 sitespecific 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 415 of 445

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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 416 of 445

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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific operating 

limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 417 of 445

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 418 of 445

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

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 419 of 445

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

producvt.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 420 of 445

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

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 

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 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of firstfire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis); 

and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 421 of 445

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 first-fire 

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 firstfire 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 422 of 445

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 firstfire 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

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 423 of 445

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 E05 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 424 of 445

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 E04 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 425 of 445

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.3 E04 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

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 

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 0.31 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of firstfire 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 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 426 of 445

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 firstfire 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 firstfire 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 firstfire 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 427 of 445

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

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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 428 of 445

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 429 of 445

ii. Verifying that lime is freeflowing 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.

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 

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

Collecting the stack temperature

data according to §63.8600(a); and

maintaining the stack temperature at 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 430 of 445

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission limit 

without an ACI 

system.

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.

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 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 

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 HClequivalent 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 431 of 445

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.

Conducting daily inspections to 

verify the presence of water flow to 

the wet control system; and

Conducting weekly visual inspections 

of the system ductwork and control 

equipment for leaks; and

Conducting annual inspections of the 

interior of the control equipment 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 432 of 445

(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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 433 of 445

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 [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication in the 

Federal Register]

Comply with the 

applicable emission 

limitations and work 

practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to 

this subpart

[Insert date 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

2. New or reconstructed 

affected source and the initial 

startup of your affected source 

is after [insert date 60 days 

from date of publication in the 

Federal Register]

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 434 of 445

If you have a(n)... Then you must... No later than... 

3. Existing affected source Comply with the 

applicable emission 

limitations and work 

practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to 

this subpart

[Insert date 3 

years and 60 

days from date 

of publication

in the Federal 

Register].

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 [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication in the 

Federal Register]

Submit an 

Initial 

Notification

[Insert date 240

days from date of 

publication in 

the Federal 

Register]

§63.9(b)(2).

2. Start up your new or 

reconstructed affected 

source on or 

after [insert date 60 

days from date of 

publication in the 

Federal Register]

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 435 of 445

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...
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 436 of 445

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-ofcontrol 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:

Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 437 of 445

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 438 of 445

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 439 of 445

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 440 of 445

§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.

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 441 of 445

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 442 of 445

§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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 443 of 445

§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 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 444 of 445

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(xii) and (xiv)

CMS Records. Records when CMS is 

malfunctioning, 

inoperative or out-ofcontrol.

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release 

During Review***

Page 445 of 445

§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.